UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
B207,434
JANU'S IN ROM AN LIFE
AND CU LT
A STUI Y IN ROMAN RELIGIONS
A Cº ESIS
PRESENTED TO THE FACULty of THE GRADUATE SoHoot, IN
PARTIAL FULFILA, ENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE tº Doctor of PHILosophy
By
BESSIE REBECCA BURCHETT
The ºutlegiate ºress
GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING COMPANY
MENASHA, WISCONSIN
1918



;
º
º
:
S.Aºy NY Vºy AP),\!/ \"\ºº.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||I||||IIITUTIILIIII
ſº º ºx cºlº º C º ºg º e º
I& EC 'E IV ED IN EX (“I I.M. NC : R.
File () NI
\tº\\\

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
JANU S IN ROMAN LIFE
AND CU LT
A STUDY IN ROMAN RELIGIONS
A THESIS
PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN
PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
BY
BESSIE REBECCA BURCHETT
Qſhe (Jollegiate #ress
GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING COMPANY
MENASHA, WISCONSIN
1918
The writer wishes to express her sincere thanks to
Professor John C. Rolfe, Professor Walton Brooks
McDaniel, Professor Roland G. Kent, Assistant Profes-
sor George D. Hadzsits and to Dr. E. H. Heffner for
their kindly criticism and advice given during the
preparation of this thesis.
3.
4.
*=
##
3.
#.
INTRODUCTION
In the bibliography appended to this thesis are presented Some
of the works consulted. A complete list of the books dealing with the
subject would be far too large to include in so short a work. In the
footnotes are given all the references in Latin literature to Janus and
to his cult, so far as it lay in the power of the author to compile them.
But very few references to secondary sources are given. To have set
forth and tried to uphold or to refute the theories of others would have
been a long and tedious task, and would merely have obscured the Con-
clusions which the writer wished to deduce from the original material.
Occasionally such references are made for the sake of clearness, and
in those cases mention is made of the works which best suited the pur-
pose. -
The writer is especially indebted to the works of Mr. Grant Allen,
Professor Carter, Professor W. W. Fowler, Professor Frazer, and
Professor Wissowa.
The conclusions reached are, for the most part, the writer's own,
and differ in some respects from the usually accepted ones. However,
in the chapters on the “Janus Geminus,” on the “Relation of Janus
to Other Deities” and on “Miscellanies,” will be found little that is
new. These chapters are inserted merely for the purpose of giving a
complete view of the Janus cult. The theory that the rex sacrorum
was a human Jupiter has been advanced by Mr. Grant Allen, Dr. A. B.
Cook, Professor Frazer and others. It remained only to add to their
arguments, which are mostly anthropological, the evidence of Roman
literature, and to carry the theory to the conclusion that, if a human
Jupiter, the rex sacrorum was a priest of Jupiter, not of Janus, as has
been hitherto maintained. Furthermore, original passages have been
given as evidence that this belief accords with the character and ritual
of both the rex sacrorum and of the god Janus. Evidence, besides, has
been presented to show that Jupiter and Janus are not identical, as
Some have thought possible, but that they are quite different deities.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION........................................................…. V
CHAPTER I. THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF RELIGION................................................ 1
The Beginnings of the Janus-Cult.
Deification of the dead; Deification of kings; Numina; Janus a numen of
the door-way; Developed into a god of war and of generation.
CHAPTER II. PRAYERS AND FORMULAS...................................................................... 6
Salian hymn; Cato's rustic ritual; Self-devotion; Devoting a city of the
enemy; Song of the Arvals; Conclusion.
CHAPTER III. THE PLACE OF JANUS AS GOD OF BEGINNINGS................................ 11
Importance of a good beginning; Examples of beginnings for which Janus
was not invoked; The first month of the year originally not sacred to Janus;
First day of the year; The Kalends; Dawn; Interpretation of some passages
on which has been based the theory that Janus was a god of beginnings;
Theories advanced by the Romans explaining the position of Janus at the
head of the list of gods; Explaining the place of January at the beginning
of the year; Summary.
CHAPTER IV. STATUES OF JANUS................................................................................ 27
No statues of deities among the Romans until late; The statue brought
from Egypt by Augustus; The statue from Falerii and the Numa statue;
Janus was not an anthropomorphic god, but an arch.
CHAPTER V. THE CONNECTION OF JANUS WITH EARLY COINAGE.......................... 30
Theory that the head of Janus on the as originated in the conception of
Janus as a door-god, because of the analogy between an entrance and a har-
bor; More probable that it was the result of an identification of Janus with
the Greek Hermes; Portunus, Tiberinus, Volturnus.
CHAPTER VI. JANUS GEMINUS AND OTHER JANUS–ARCHES AND TEMPLES.......... 37
Janus-Geminus, the true representation of Janus; Origin; Dates of the
closing of the gates; Site and appearance; Ceremonies in connection with;
the augurium salutis; Ianus, Summus, Imus, and Medius; Other Iani;
Temple of C. Duilius.
CHAPTER VII. THE REX SACRORUM.......................................................................... 45
Parallelism between the worship of the primitive household and that of the
state, discrepancies therein; Incarnate kings, evidences that these existed
among the early Romans; Evidence that Jupiter was the god incarnated
in the Roman priest-king; The rex sacrorum a priest of Jupiter; Traditions
about the establishment of the body of priests adduced as proof of this
theory; The agonalia; Other gods than Janus, who lacked priests; Duties and
privileges of the rex sacrorum.
CHAPTER VIII. RELATION OF JANUs To OTHER DEITIES........................................ 63
1. Jupiter; 2. Saturn; 3. Juno; 4. Diana; 5. Mater Matuta; 6. Ops Con-
siva; 7. Carna.
CHAPTER IX. MISCELLANIES.................................................. - . 70
1. Inscriptions; 2. Spolia Opima; 3. Circenses of January Seventh.
Conclusion.…. 72
CHAPTER I
THEORIES CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF RELIGION
The Beginnings of the Janus-Cult
The study of anthropology and, more especially, of comparative
religion has in recent years brought to light some concepts of gods So
unlike those entertained by civilized peoples that it requires no little
effort to adjust the mind and imagination to their reception. Various
theories have been put forth to account for man's first conception of
divinity. One of these theories Mr. Grant Allen illustrates by an anec-
dote told in his Evolution of the Idea of God." Sir Richard Burton, he
says, was exploring a remote Mohammedan region and, in order to
have greater freedom, disguised himself as a fakir of Islam. So success-
ful was he in playing the part of holy man, that he inspired in the people
a great reverence for his sanctity. But one night a chief of the village
came to him secretly and urged him to flee, if he valued his life. The
explorer was much surprised at the possibility of danger, in view of the
influence which he had gained among the superstitious natives. But it
was this very religious awe, which, as the friendly chief said, was the
Source of peril; for the people were planning to slay their spiritual
master for the laudable purpose of retaining his tomb among them as a
shrine. The warning gave this traveler barely time to escape an un-
desirable apotheosis. Whether or not this story is true (and Mr. Allen
refuses to vouch for it), it furnishes a good illustration of the process
of manufacturing gods. According to Mr. Allen's theory, the first
deities developed from dead men, of whom some died naturally,” and
Some were slain for the purpose of deifying them. Of course the manu-
facturing of divinity by human sacrifice was the invention of a later
civilization than was the simple worship of men who had died in the
ordinary course of nature. Because the people expected to receive
benefits from the deified members of their tribe, the thought at some
time entered their minds that it might be advantageous to dispatch
occasionally to the powerful company of spirits a special representative
from among the living; for, on account of his recent experience of their
*Allen Evolution of the Idea of God p. 271.
*Cf. Cic. N. D. 1, 42, 119; Cyprian. Idol. Van. 1.
2 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
need, they expected him to make a greater effort on their behalf. The
good-will of the intended victim they could easily gain beforehand by
bestowing on him plentiful gifts and honors. Cases are actually known
of persons thus indulged departing life willingly when their time was up.
This custom merely hastened the deification of those who were poten-
tially gods. This is a brief view of Mr. Allen's theory about the way in
which gods were made.
Professor Frazer gives interesting evidence of the origin of a second
Sort of divinity. He has taken as the starting point of his two great
works, The Golden Bough and Lectures on the Early History of the King-
ship, the strange cult in the grove at Nemi, near Aricia. He begins:
“In the sacred grove there grew a certain tree round which . . . . . al,
grim figure might be seen to prowl. In his hand he carried a drawn
Sword, and he kept peering warily about him as if at every instant he
expected to be set upon by an enemy. He was a priest and a murderer;
and the man for whom he looked was sooner or later to murder him and
hold the priesthood in his stead. Such was the rule of the sanctuary. A
candidate . . . . . could succeed to office only by slaying the priest. . .
The post which he held by this precarious tenure carried with it the
title of king.” After collecting a great mass of evidence for the existence
of customs similar to this among many different tribes and nations both
of the past and of the present, Professor Frazer comes to the conclusion
that gods developed from kings. These kings were originally magicians
whose most important duty was that of controlling the weather by
sympathetic magic. The magical power which they professed to exer-
cise, often making the claim with perfect sincerity, gradually raised them
in the eyes of their subjects to the rank of gods. They were propitiated
with gifts, they were surrounded with taboos and other safeguards to
their divinity. For, if they were well, the land would be fruitful; if
they were injured, vegetation would fail, and the flocks would cease to
multiply. It was in accordance with this line of reasoning that the
people conceived the strange idea of slaying their king-gods while
they were still in the prime of life, so that their successors might inherit
the divine essence unimpaired by old age or disease. In some
nations their rulers seem to have been slain at stated intervals; in
others, whenever circumstances might seem to require it. It is easily
* Frazer Golden Bough 1, pp. 8 sqq.; Cf. Lect. on Kingship, Chapt. 1.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 3
seen that the two theories, those of Mr. Allen and of Professor Frazer,
overlap to some extent, since in both cases the slain victim was already,
or potentially, a deity. .
Another theory of the development of the religious sense, one better
known to students of Roman religion, is that which is lucidly and con-
veniently given by Professor Carter in his Religion of Numa.” He
supposes that in very remote antiquity, before the settlement of the
Palatine, the primitive Latins conceived of all the objects about them
as animated by vague spirits or numina. These were not personifica-
tions, they were on the contrary, so intangible as to lack name or Sex.
Some of them, however, did gain name and personality, partly under
Greek influence, and so attained the rank of deities.
Several factors, therefore, were probably at work in the creation
of the Roman gods. Whether the three sorts came into existence at the
same time or at different times, and whether side by side, or in different
localities, is hard, perhaps impossible, to determine. Each is, at any
rate, a very old notion. Among divinities of the first sort are the
Manes who came from deified ancestors. An example of a god develop-
ing from an incarnate king is probably Jupiter.” And, in the third place,
Janus seems to have joined the heavenly hierarchy after having been the
Spirit indwelling in a material thing, the door-way.
Among all the various theories, both ancient and modern, of the
origin of the two-faced god, this seems to be the one most favored.
Evidence for its truth will be given throughout this paper, but, as a pre-
liminary, some facts may be cited here. Although, under the influence of
Greek philosophy, Janus became a great cosmic deity, rivalling Jupiter
himself as a world-god, nevertheless he is constantly given the functions
of a door, or of a door-keeper." He is represented as carrying a key," and
in mythology he is associated with deities so obscure as Cardea, the
spirit of the door-hinge, and Limentinus, of the threshold.” It seems
hardly probable that this would have been so, if there had not been
Some fundamental connection between the god and the door. Indeed,
*Carter Relig. of Numa pp. 5 sqq.
* See J. Chapt. VII. J always refers to this thesis.
*Lyd. Mens. 4, 1; Macrob. 1, 9, 2; 1, 9, 9; Ov. F. 1, 117-125; 1, 138–140; Septim.
Seren. frg. 1, 1.
* Arnob. 6, 25; Lyd. Mens. 4, 1; Ov. F. 1, 99; 1, 228; 1, 254.
*Tert. Idol. 15; Cor. Mil. 13.
4 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
Some of the noblest attributes assigned to him by poets and philosophers
associate him with entrances.”
Now, although all things were conceived of as animated by vague
spirits, or numina, only the numina, of the more important objects
gained any prominence. Among these were the door-way and the
hearth. The door-way was a strategic point, since it was the place at
which attacks from foes were most to be expected. The hearth also re-
quired constant care in primitive times, when fire was difficult to obtain.
The numina of these objects, therefore, became more holy than others,
and assumed, in time, some of the characteristics of their chief votaries.
Thus, the fire which was kept by the daughters of the house, became a
female deity, Vesta; and the door-way, because its protector was a man,
became a god, Janus. It is not to be supposed that all deities, even
among the Romans, gained their sex and character in this way; but in
these two cases, where the divinities were originally so evidently with-
out personality and where there seems to have been no other reason
for assigning sex, this must have been, at least, a determining factor. A
passage in St. Augustine is a good illustration of the feeling that male
numina presided over things pertaining to men, and female over those
pertaining to women: Sed cum et mares et feminae habeant pecuniam,
cur non et Pecunia et Pecunius appellatus sit, sicut Rumina et Ruminus,
ipsi viderint.”
Janus, then, because his chief worshiper was a man, became a male
deity. In assuming still further the characteristics of his principal
votary, he became a god of generation. As such he had the Cognomen
pater,” which was assigned to all the gods who were concerned with
childbirth. In much the same way he became also a god of war. For,
as time went on, when the early Romans felt the need of divine aid for
some new activity of life, they did not invent a new deity, but turned
° S. Aug. C. D. 7, 3; 7, 7; Isid. Etymol. 8, 11, 37; Lyd. Mens. 4, 1; 4, 2; Macrob.
1, 9, 9; 1, 9, 11; Nemes. Cyneg. 104-105; Ov. F. 1, 125; 1, 139; Septim. Seren. frg.
1, 1.
1° S. Aug. C. D. 7, 11.
11 Athen. 15, 46; Cato R. R. 134; CIL. I, p. 334; 382; III, 2881; 3030; 3158; VIII,
2608; 4576; VIII, 11797; XI, 5374; Gell. 5, 12, 3-5; Hor. Epist. 1, 16, 59; Lucil.
(Marx) 20-22; Macrob. 1, 9, 15–16; Mart. 8, 2, 8; 10, 28, 7; Plin. N. H. 36, 5, 4, 28;
Senec. Apoc. 9; Serv. Aen. 8, 357; Septim. Seren. frg. 1, 1; Verg. Aen. 8, 357; Aurel.
Vict. Orig. 3, 7. For a different theory, see Tert. Nat. 2, 11 and Fowler Relig. Exp.
pp. 155 Sqq.
º JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 5
to one or more of the gods whom they already possessed. This is
probably one reason why even the early deities overlap in their func-
tions to so great an extent. When the primitive Roman went to war,
he invoked, besides the numina that he was accustomed to worship,
the things connected with this activity: the fields and woods through
which he had to pass, and the weapons which he had to use. The spears
and shields which were preserved in the Regia were perhaps relics of
this ancient worship of weapons.” But of all these war deities, Mars
gained the ascendancy, and became so important in this later capacity
that his original character was almost forgotten; Janus, on the other hand,
ceased to be worshiped as a war god. Traces of his warlike character
remained, however, in his cult at the Janus Geminus.”
It is obvious that Janus lost his prečminence in ritualistic wor-
ship, yet his importance in early religion is proved beyond a doubt by
the fact that in nearly all rituals his name preceded that of other deities,
and that it held this position for a length of time sufficient to make it
fixed and unchanged throughout the whole period of Roman religion.”
* Dion. of Hal. 2, 71; Gell. 4, 6, 1.
*J. Chapt. VI.
*J. Chapt. II.
*x. . .
CHAPTER II
PRAYERS AND FORMULAS
Among the religious formulas in which Janus holds an important
place may be mentioned the most ancient piece of Latin literature extant,
the hymn of the Salian priests. Janus is celebrated in a set of verses
called Ianuli." Varro and Quintilian say that in their time” the
words were unintelligible even to priests. Varro gives them as follows:
Cozeulodorieso omnia vero adpatula coemisse ian cusianes duonus
ceruses dunus ianus ve vet pom elios eum recun. divum empta cante,
divum deo supplicante.” Professor Allen in his Remnants of Early
Latin gives the “least desperate” of the lines referring to Janus thus:
Divom * empta cante, divom deo supplicate,
& © $ tº º $ tº gº © tº e º 'º & & & omina vero
adpatula coemise Iani cusianes:
duonus ceruses, duonus Ianus.*
Macrobius says that Janus is called deorum deus in the “most ancient
song of the Salians.” The first line, therefore, must refer to Janus.
The other three lines Professor Allen renders, “The curiones of Janus
have in truth perceived clear omens: thou art the good creator, good
Janus.” In Paulus-Festus also the word cerus is translated creator.”
Therefore these lines include Janus among the gods of generation. It
is to be noted also that, at the remote time when the song was formulated,
Janus was of sufficient importance to be hailed as “god of gods.”
The rustic rituals described by Cato furnish other prayers in which
Janus holds first place. This hardy old advocate of the simple life
prescribes that a sacrifice be offered to Ceres before harvest. Care-
ful directions are given: As a preliminary, wine and incense were offered
to Janus, to Jupiter and to Juno with prayers; then the cakes called
strues were presented to Janus with the petition that he be propitious
mihi, liberisque meis, domo, familiaeque meae. Next a cake called
1 Fest. 3.
* Quintil. Instit. Orat. 1, 6, 40; Varro. L. L. 7, 2-3.
* Varro L. L. 7, 26-27.
*Allen Remn. of Early Lat. p. 74.
* Macrob. 1, 9, 14.
6 Fest. 122.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 7
fercium was offered to Jupiter with the same prayer. Then wine was
again poured out to Janus and to Jupiter, each time with a repetition
of the formula. At length the pig was slain in honor of the patiently
waiting Ceres. After that, cakes and wine had to be presented to Janus
and to Jupiter in the same order as before, with the same prayer." In
the ceremony for the lustration of the fields, Cato directs that the
beasts of the suovetaurilia be driven around the plot of ground to be
purified, and wine be offered to Janus and to Jupiter, the prayer being
addressed to Mars alone.”
In the formula for self-devotion, devotio, as given by Livy, Janus
holds the first place.” But in the formula which Macrobius gives
for devoting a city of the enemy, his name is not mentioned.” The
prayer of the fetial priests, when demanding restitution, follows two
methods of procedure. In the beginning the priests invoked Jupiter
alone; in the latter part of the formula they called upon Jupiter, Janus
and Quirinus by name, and summed up the other gods thus: digue omnes
Caelestes . . . . . terrestres, inferni.” In the last of these formulas
it is noteworthy that Jupiter, not Janus, comes first. The reason must
be that the fetial priests, when using the formula, were acting as atten-
dants of Jupiter, the god of the whole Alban people. The preéminence
of this deity, then, was due to his importance to the League. His
place in the list of gods, in other words, was determined by his relation
to the matter in hand.
In the song of the Arvals,” which, like that of the Salians, had
been handed down from remote antiquity by word of mouth, and had
very probably become unintelligible in classical times, the name of Janus
does not appear. He had a place however, in the rites of the brother-
hood. Pliny” and Gellius" give the information that the order was
founded by Romulus. The priesthood seems to have been devoted
7 Cato R. R. 134.
* Cato R. R. 141.
° Liv. 8, 9.
* Macrob. 3, 9, 9-10.
* Liv. 1, 32; Polyb. 3, 25, 6; (in the prayer in Verg. Aen. 12, 176 sqq., Janus does
not come first, but it is to be noted that many of the deities are Greek. Cf. Servius
on line 198.)
* CIL. I, 28; VI, 2104, ll, 32-38; Henzen Act. Frat. Arv, pp. cciv; 26-27.
* Plin. N. H. 18, 2, 6.
* Gell. 7, 7.
8 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
originally to the service of the Dea Dia, and the ceremonies appear
to have concerned the fertility of the fields.” After having fallen into
decay during the late republic, and having been revived by Augustus,
the brotherhood took upon itself the duty of offering prayers and sacri-
fices for the safety of the emperor, of his family and of the whole state.
They met for this purpose on different occasions, such as the birthday
of the emperor,” or of one of his family,” on his return from a journey,”
and annually on January third.” Their principal meeting place was
the grove of Dea Dia outside Rome. In this grove have been found
some of the “minutes of their meetings” carved in stone.” From these
inscriptions comes most of the information about the priests and their
ceremonies. The fullest account of their ritual is in the Acta of the
time of Elagabalus, about 218 A.D. * The ancient nature of the cult
is shown by the fact that, when iron was brought into the grove, to prune
trees, or to cut inscriptions, a piacular sacrifice had to be made.” On the
occasion of an offering of this sort, or of one made to avert an evil omen,
such as the falling of a tree,” the deities invoked were the regular state
gods, beginning with Janus and ending with Vesta. But the name of
Dea Dia herself preceded the whole list. She must have held this im-
portant place because the sacrifice was held in her grove and in her
honor, just as Jupiter took precedence of the other gods in the ritual
which concerned the whole Alban people. When, however, the priests
made a vow, or performed a sacrifice, for the emperor, they invoked
the triad Jupiter, Juno and Minerva,” and sometimes the Genius of the
emperor,” the Juno of the empress,” and such late abstractions as
* Varro L. L. 5, 85; Fowler Rom. Fest. pp. 74; 105; Henzen Act. Frat. Arv. pp.
i-ix; Wissowa Relig. u. Kult. pp. 143, 195, 562.
* CIL. VI, 2025, a, I, line 1; 2030, lines 22-24; 2041, line 30.
17 CIL. VI, 2024 f., line 3; 2041, line 16.
* CIL. VI, 2042, line 26.
* CIL. VI, 2025, lines 13 sqq.; 2028, lines 1-15; 2040, lines 13-22; 2041, lines
35-48. -
30 CIL. VI, 2023-2119;
* CIL. VI, 2104.
* CIL. VI, 2068 column 2, lines 37–38; 2104, lines 40–42; 2107, lines 24–25; (Cf.
Macrob. 5, 19, 13; Serv. Aen. 1, 448).
* CIL. VI, 2028, c, lines 21-23; 2053, lines 14–21.
* CIL. VI, 2037, line 9; 2039, lines 8-9.
* CIL. VI, 2037, line 10; 2043, II, line 10.
* CIL. VI, 2043, II, line 10.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 9
Salus,” Victoria,” and Pax.” Dea Dia was occasionally named after
Jupiter, Juno and Minerva,” but often she was left out altogether,”
even though the priesthood and the grove in which they met were hers.
Here, again, the order in which the deities were invoked was determined
by their relative importance to the ceremony. In the ritual of emperor-
worship Jupiter preceded the other gods, probably because the deifying
of the emperor was a strange reversion to the cult of the human Jupiter.”
With him were associated the two goddesses of the Etruscan triad, and
other deities who were especially connected with the emperor. The
cult of the Fratres Arvales, as revealed in these inscriptions, seems to
show a grafting of the worship of the human Jupiter upon that of the
Dea Dia. In the branch of the cult concerned with the emperor, Jupiter
and his group of deities are worshiped almost exclusively; in the part
concerned with the Dea Dia, Janus occupies his usual position, heading
the list of gods. But the list itself is preceded by the name of Dea Dia,
who is the important factor in the ritual.”
To sum up, then, the name of Janus regularly preceded that of other
gods. And when a sacrifice was performed to any deity, a preliminary
offering was usually made to Janus. Ovid expressly mentions this fact:
tº º ſº º e Cur, quamvis aliorum numina placem,
Iane, tibi primum tura merumque fero?”
When another deity than Janus comes first, the changed order is due
to Some peculiar importance of that deity to the particular rite. Janus
must have gained this precedence because of his importance to all
Roman ritual at the time when the religion was crystallizing.
On the other hand, the name of Vesta was regularly placed at the
end of a complete list. To account for this the Romans fabricated many
theories which, needless to say, cannot be used as evidence without
careful sifting. The explanation most readily occurring to their minds
was an analogical one. Janus is the door, and Vesta, the hearth, there-
*7 CIL. VI, 2039, line 9.
* CIL. VI, 2051, line 38.
* CIL. VI, 2044, line 12.
30 CIL. VI, 2028.
* CIL. VI, 2041, lines 4–48; 2042, lines 1-16.
*J. Chapt. VII.
* Cf. CIL. VIII, S. 11797 and note.
* Ov. F. 1, 171-172; cf. Serv. Aen. 1, 292; J. p. 58.
10 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
fore Janus is invoked first and Vesta last.” Janus has charge of entran-
ces, therefore he is used as passage-way to the other gods.” He comes
first because he is the god of generation,” or because he is the inventor
of speech.” The variety of reasons given shows that they were simply
made up to account for a phenomenon not understood. The conclu-
sion may be drawn, however, after considering the rituals here mentioned,
that Janus did not occupy his position at the head of some formulas,
because he was god of beginnings, any more than did Jupiter and Dea
Dia hold a similar position in other formulas because they were deities
of beginnings, nor any more than did Vesta have her place at the end
of prayers because she was goddess of endings. The true explanation
must be that because of their relative importance in respect to the other
deities Janus came to hold the first place, and Vesta, the place next in
importance, the last. A few recitations of a prayer, at the time when
religion was in the formative period, would serve to fix the order. When
once it had become established, religious conservatism, which was
especially strong among the Romans, would require that it be kept.
Indeed, the order of service became so stereotyped that calling on Janus
and Vesta became a synonym for praying.” It will be necessary to
consider this subject further in the following Chapter.
* Cic. N. D. 2, 27, 67.
* Macrob. 1, 9, 9; Ov. F. 1, 171-174.
87 S. Aug. C. D. 7, 2.
* Serv. Aen. 7, 610.
* Juv. 6, 386; Hor. Epist. 1, 16, 59. cf. Arnob. 3, 29; S. Aug. C. D. 4, 23; J.
Chapt. VII, pp. 57-59.
CHAPTER III
THE PLACE OF JANUs As GoD OF BEGINNINGS
In modern works on mythology, Janus is commonly described as a
god of beginnings. One quotation will illustrate this view. Mommsen
says: “The facts, that gates and doors and the morning (Ianus matutinus)
were sacred to Ianus, and that he was always invoked before any other
god and was even represented in the series of coins before Jupiter and
the other gods, indicate unmistakably that he was the abstraction of
opening and beginning.” It is the purpose of this Chapter to show that
in no ritual was Janus worshiped as god of beginnings. It is true that
originally he was the numen of the door-opening,” and in the conventional
list of deities he came first.” But neither of these facts makes him a
god of beginnings.
There is no doubt, however, that the Romans did consider a good.
beginning of great importance. Ovid has the statement,
Omina principiis . . . . . inesse solent,”
This line is put in the mouth of Janus, but, nevertheless, he claims
for himself no honors at the beginnings of undertakings; he gives this
statement only as a reason why propitious words are to be spoken on
New Year's Day, and makes the further explanation,
Ad primam vocem timidas advertitis aures."
These lines simply refer to the well-known fact that the first words of
an oracle and the first birds of an omen meant more than any which
followed. In accordance with this view, if a sacrifice proved unsatis-
factory, or the victim escaped, and a second offering had to be made,
the omen was never considered so bright as when the first sacrifice turned
out favorably. It was, therefore, a euphemism to call the second victim
melior hostia." Another example of the importance of a good beginning
is found in the custom of lifting a bride over the threshold of her new
home. To stumble on the threshold at any time was unfortunate, to
* Mommsen Hist. I, p. 213, note; cf. Carter Relig. Life of Anc. Rome, p. 10.
*J. Chapt. I.
*J. Chapt. II.
* Ov. F. 1, 178; cf. Ov. F. 1, 187-188.
* Ov. F. 1,179.
* Verg. Aen. 5, 483. cf. however, Servius' note on this passage.
12 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
do so when entering for the first time was calamitous. But, in spite
of this common belief, there is no case on record of an invocation to Janus
at the beginning of married life. Evidently, in matrimonial affairs, at
least, his intervention was not considered essential to a good beginning.
In this, as in other ceremonies, he would be invoked first, if the prayer
was offered to the regular state deities. His aid was not, however,
sought for the beginning, but he was called upon first because the first
place in the list of gods was his by long-established custom. As another
example may be cited the incident in Livy 22, 3, 11-12. Flaminius was
thrown from his horse before an engagement with the enemy. His
soldiers were terrified, velut foedo omine incipiendae rei. In spite,
however, of this terror at the ill-omened beginning, there is no account
given of an appeal to Janus to make the next starting more propitious.
If Janus were god of beginnings, some mention of his lack of favor
would be expected in such instances as these.
If he had been patron of commencement, there are other situations,
too, in which he would necessarily have to figure. For instance, in that
case, he ought to have been patron of the first of the arbitrary divisions
of time: sacrifices in his honor would be looked for at dawn, on the
first day of the new year, and on the first day of each month; and the
first month of the year would be sacred to him. None of these things
was true. In the first place, it is a well-known fact that in the old
Roman calendar the first month was sacred, not to Janus, but to Mars.”
In 153 B.C. the consuls began to enter upon their office in January, and,
because the years were designated by consuls, it became customary to
consider January the first month of the year.” But the religious year
continued to be reckoned from the first of March. The order of months,
then, was certainly not due to the character of Janus. It might almost
be said to have been by accident that the month called by his name
came to be the first.
As for January first, Macrobius thought that it was a day sacred
to Janus, he said that men invoked him Iunonium quasi non Solum
7 Auson. Eclog. 376, 3; 377, 5–6; Paulus-Fest. 150; Lyd. Mens. 1, 16; Macrob.
1, 12, 3; 1, 15, 18; Ov. F. 1, 27–44; 2, 47-54; 3, 75-154; 4, 25-26; 5, 423-424; Plut.
Numa 18; 19; Q. R. 19; Serv. Georg. 1, 43; 1, 217; Solin. 1, 34-40; Varro L. L. 6, 33-34.
* Fowler Rom. Fest. p. 33; (Fowler does not admit that the month of January
was certainly named for Janus).
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 13
mensis Ianuarii sed mensium omnium ingressus tenentem.” He seems
to be taking this for granted, basing his opinion on the name only. But
at any rate, he mentions no offering to Janus. The Praenestine Calen-
dar notes a sacrifice to Vediovis and to Aesculapius on the first of Janu-
ary.” In the private celebration of the day the exchange of gifts was
an important feature.” These presents had nothing to do with Janus.
Their very name strenae seems to have been taken from another deity,
Strenia.” Ovid says that the sweetmeats which formed a large part
of the gifts were intended to make the whole year pleasant.” This
custom was in accordance with the belief that the beginning of anything
determined the character of the whole.” On this theory, also, was
based the caution to speak only words of good omen on the first day
of the year.” For the same reason, some part of the daily tasks was
performed, although this was a festal day, in order to secure industry
throughout the year.” In all this Janus had no part. In the stately
ceremonies of inaugurating the new consuls, as Ovid describes them,
incense was burned, a procession of men in white ascended the Capitol,
and white bullocks, whose necks had never felt a yoke, were sacrificed
to Jupiter." Lydus says that the consul, dressed in white and riding
a white horse, led the procession to the Capitol. After sacrificing
his horse to Jupiter, he donned the toga consularis, and departed.”
Jupiter is the god here honored. It is doubtful whether Janus had even
his conventional place at the head of the list of gods invoked; for it
is quite possible that the deities concerned with this ceremony were the
Capitoline triad–Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. This trinity seems to
belong to a different category from the list of divinities which began with
Janus and ended with Vesta.”
* Macrob. 1, 9, 16.
* CIL. I, p. 312.
* Mart. 8, 33, 11-12; 13, 27; Ov. F. 1,185-186.
*S. Aug. C. D. 4, 11; 4, 16; Paulus-Fest. 293; Lyd. Mens. 4, 4 says that the
strena were laurel leaves used in honor of a goddess of the name, who was a Victory.
* Ov. F. 1,185-188.
*J. pp. 11-12.
* Ov. F. 1,175.
* Ov. F. 1,165-170.
” Ov. F. 1,71-88.
*Lyd. Mens. 4, 3.
* Cf. J. pp. 7-10.
14 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
The name of Janus, as has been seen, is not mentioned in the accounts
of the private or of the public celebrations of New Year's Day. If,
even at Some remote time, Janus had had any sacrifice on the first day
of his own month, it can hardly be supposed that it would have been
so completely obscured by these later ceremonies as to have been lost
even to memory. In this case, silence is almost equivalent to proof of
non-existence.
Nevertheless, the dignified ceremonies connected with the inaug-
uration of the new officers gave a peculiarly patriotic and religious
significance to the first day of the year, and this reflected back to Janus,
because his name was attached to the month. The character of this
association can be examined in the following passages. Ovid has the
line,
Ecce tibi faustum, Germanice, (Ianus) nuntiat annum.”
Germanicus is about to enter upon his consulship on the first of January,
therefore Janus was said to announce to him the opening of the year.
In Statius, Silvae 4, 1, 2 Germanicus opens the year,
Insignemdue aperit Germanicus annum,
and in 4, 2, 60-61 the same flatterer hopes that Domitian may often so
usher in the new year, and salute Janus,
e tº e C & © tº e º 'º e º e º 'º Saepe annua pandas
Limina, saepe novo Ianum lictore Salutes.
Claudianus makes Janus open the year,
Iamgue novum fastis aperit felicibus annum.”
So either the new consul, whose name will be used to fix the date, or
Janus, whose month begins all years, may be celebrated by the poets as
the opener of the year.
Martial represents Janus as the bestower of the honors assumed on
the first of his month, in 8, 66, 11-12,
Quorum pacificus ter ampliavit
Ianus nomina,
and in 11, 4, 5-6,
Et qui purpureis iam tertia nomina fastis,
Iane, refers Nervae.
20 Ov. F. 1, 63.
* Claudian. VI Cons. Hon. 28, 640.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 15
Ianus is here little more than a personification of Ianuarius mensis.
The following lines, which Janus is represented as saying to Domitian
might seem, if taken alone, to give the name of the deity a deeper re-
ligious significance:
Salve, magne parens mundi, qui saecula mecum
instaurare paras: talem te cernere semper
mense meo tua Roma Cupit . . . . . . . .
continua.”
but, on comparison with the foregoing, they may be paraphrased thus:
“You and I open the year. Rome desires always to see you assume
the consulship in my month.” The connection between Janus and
the ceremonies of January first may be still further illustrated by these
lines from the Carmina Tria de Mensibus:
Hic Iani mensis Sacer est: en aspice ut aris
tura micent, Sumant ut pia liba Lares.
Annorum saeclique caput, natalis honorum
purpureos fastis qui numerat proceres.”
which may mean, “This is the sacred month of January—sacred because
of the ceremonies. January is the beginning of the year, because the
purple-clad chiefs date their office from that month.” Although
Janus is used here only as a personification of his month, yet some Sanc-
tity is reflected to the god himself from the ceremonies of the day. From
the lines just quoted, it seems evident that Fastorum genitor parensque”
means only, “Janus, i. e. January, is the beginning of the year, a fact
to be emphasized by patriotic Romans, because the consuls assumed, or
renewed, office on January first.” And Annorum nitidique sator pul-
cherrime mundi* has about the same significance.
In Nemesianus, Cynegetica 104-105 the connection is still more clear,
tº tº e º 'º e º cum Ianus, temporis auctor,
Pandit inocciduum bisSenis mensibus aevum.
Ausonius, in a poem celebrating his own consulship, calls the year
itself “father of events,” that is, “father of dates.”
*Stat. Silv. 4, 1, 17-21.
* Bährens Poet. Lat. Min. I, p. 206, 12, 1-4.
*Mart. 8, 2, 1.
* Mart. 10, 28, 1.
16 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
Anne, pater rerum,”
In the following lines Janus is the beginner of the year in the same sense,
Ergo ubi, Iane biceps, longum reseraveris annum.”
Nec tu dux mensum, Iane biformis, eras,”
Primus Romanas ordiris, Iane, Kalendas,”
When the word Ianus is used as it is here, it is difficult to determine
whether there is any reference to the god himself, beyond the personi-
fication of his month. In the following, Ianus has no significance at all
except as it means the month.
Possidet hunc Iani sic dea mense diem,”
Ianus finem habet.”
The month of December is also personified in,
(Decembris) . . . . . Poteras non cedere Iano,
Gaudia si nobis quae dabit ille dares.”
Ausonius, in Eclogue 378, 4, uses the names both of Janus and of Mars,
in place of the names of their months,
tº & ºn tº o Iani Martisque Kalendis.
The same process of personification is in force when Ovid says to Janus
tuis Kalendis.” That these words do not imply that all Kalends were
sacred to Janus, but that they simply give the date as January first, is
made still more certain by the fact that the same words are used by
Tibullus when addressing Mars,
Sulpicia est tibi culta tuis, Mars magne, Kalendis.”
The preceding argument as to the extent to which Janus was leader
of the procession of time, can be strengthened by another bit of evi-
dence. The line quoted above,
* Auson. Edyl. 9, 333, 5.
27 Ov. Pont. 4, 4, 23.
28 Ov. F. 5, 424.
* Auson. Eclog. 376, 1.
30 Mart. 7, 8, 5-6.
31 Ov. F. 1, 586.
3? Ov. F. 2, 1.
38 Ov. F. 1, 175.
* Tibull. 4, 2, 1.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 17
Iamgue novum fastis aperit felicibus annum”
may be compared with Georgics 1, 217-218, where Vergil uses the same
expression of the constellation Taurus, the rising of which on March
first marks the beginning of the farmer's year,
Candidus auratis aperit cum cornibus annum
Taurus.
Janus, who opened the year in the passage from Claudianus, was no
more a god of beginnings than was Taurus, in the line from Vergil.
Both lines are poetic ways of saying ‘‘the year begins.”
It is generally supposed that the first day of each month was sacred
to Janus.” It has just been seen that such expressions as tuis Kalendis
can not be taken as evidence for this belief. There are, however, two
passages on which this theory might be based. Macrobius asserts
(invocamus) Iunonium quasi non solum mensis Ianuarii sed mensium
omnium ingressus tenentem; in dicione autem Iunonis Sunt omnes
Kalendae, unde et Varro libro quinto Rerum Divinarum scribit Iano
duodecim aras pro totidem mensibus dedicatas.” Lydus quoted Varro
for the statement that a kind of cake was offered to Janus on the Kalends.”
Nowhere else but in these two passages is Janus made the god of the Kal-
ends. It is to be noted that Macrobius mentions no offering to Janus,
nor any ritual performed in his honor. The passage in Lydus is the only
reference to any kind of offering to Janus on that day (except as he
might appear in his conventional place at the head of the list of gods).
It may be that Lydus is quoting Varro only for the first part of his
statement and he may be adding “the Kalends” of his own accord, for
the other passages which mention the cake say nothing about an offer-
ing of it on this day.” At any rate, Lydus, a late Greek writer, full
of fanciful allusions, is no very reliable authority on Roman religion.
It is evident that Macrobius puts Janus in charge of the Kalends only
* Claudian. VI Cons. Hon. 28, 640: other passages in which Ianus is used for
Ianuarius are: Auson. Eclog. 375, 6; 381, 6; 382, 1; Edyl. 8, 332 passim; Epist. 19,
409, 7-8; Mart. 9, 1, 1-2; 10, 41, 1; 12, 31, 4; 13, 27. Ianus is used in the plural to mean
recurring consulships: Auson. Epigr. 147, 7, Tu quoque venturos per longum consere
Ianos. Cf. Auson. Epist. 20, 410, 13.
* Wissowa Relig. u. Kult. p. 103.
* Macrob. 1, 9, 16.
* Lydus Mens. 4, 2.
* CIL. 1, p. 312; Paulus-Fest. 104; cf. J. pp. 41-42.
18 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
as a means of explaining the epithet Junonius. In another passage he
explains it by analogy: a qua etiam Ianum Iunonium cognominatum
diximus, quod illi deo omnis ingressus, huic deae cuncti Kalendarum
dies videntur adscripti.*' This quotation certainly does not convey
the impression that the Kalends were sacred to Janus, any more than
entrances were to Juno. Servius says that Janus had the title Junonius
because Juno once opened the gates of war,*' and Lydus, because he
is the air.* A comparison of these passages shows that they are nothing
but guesses made to explain the epithet, and that they are useless as
evidence for the character of the god.*
Of the ritual of the first day of the month, both Varro and Macro-
bius give full accounts, which it is worth while to quote. In Varro,
Lingua Latina 6, 27, we find, Primi dies mensium nominati Kalendae,
quod his diebus calantur eius mensis Nonae a pontificibus, quintanae an
septimanae sint futurae, in Capitolio in Curia Calabra sic dicto quin-
quies Kalo Iuno Covella, septies dicto Kalo Iuno Covella. Macrobius
1, 15, 9-10 gives a fuller account, Priscis ergo temporibus antequam fasti
a Cn. Flavio scriba invitis Patribus in omnium notitiam proderentur,
pontifici minori haec provincia delegabatur ut novae lunae primum
observaret aspectum visamque regi sacrificulo nuntiaret. Itaque sacri-
ficio a rege et minore pontifice celebrato idem pontifex calata, id est
vocata, in Capitolium plebe iuxta Curiam Calabram . . . . . quot
numero dies a Kalendis ad Nonas superessent pronuntiabat. Later on,
when treating of the rites of Juno, the same author says: Romae quoque
IKalendis omnibus, praeter quod pontifex minor in Curia Calabra rem
divinam Iunoni facit, etiam regina sacrorum, id est regis uxor, porcam
vel agnam in regia Iunoni immolavit.* It has been supposed* that
this offering was made to Janus, on the assumption that the rex sacro-
rum was a priest of Janus. But if the rex sacrorum was not a priest of
Janus, as will be maintained in Chapter VII, this argumentis disposed of.
The strongest evidence for the lack of any sacrifice to Janus on the
IKalends is the absence of any reference to such a ceremony. It seems
40 Macrob. 1, 15, 19.
41 Serv. Aen. 7, 610; cf. Arnob. 6, 25.
** Lyd. Mens. 4, 1.
* J. pp. 66-67.
* Macrob. 1, 15, 19. -
“ Wissowa Relig. u. Kult. p. 103.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 19
hardly probably that, when Macrobius mentions on two occasions the
ceremonies of Juno, he would have failed to speak of those of Janus,
had he known of any. In 1, 15, 18, also, where he says that the Kalends
belonged to Juno and the Ides to Jupiter, he would naturally be expected
to mention Janus, if the two-faced god had had anything to do with
either of these days. Ovid, too, remarks on the power of Jupiter and
Juno over the Ides and Kalends respectively,
Vindicat Ausonias Iunonis cura Kalendas,
Idibus alba Iovi grandior agna cadit.”
Seven lines below he invokes Janus:
Ecce tibi faustum, Germanice, nuntiat annum
inque meo primus carmine Ianus adest.
Iane, biceps . . . . . etc.
Certainly in the first two lines the power of Janus over the Kalends, if
he had any, would be appropriately mentioned, in view, especially, of the
invocation of that deity. In the absence of any reference to an of-
fering to Janus, on this day, the only reasonable conclusion is that
there was none. And, in that case, Janus cannot be considered a god
of the Kalends.
As in the case of the Kalends and of New Year's day, there is no
record of an offering to Janus at dawn.” It might be well to consider
Some passages on which is often based the conclusion that he was god
of the morning. In Fasti 1, 125, Ovid puts these words into the mouth
of Janus:
Praesideo foribus caeli cum mitibus Horis.
In the first place, the reference to the hours is purely Greek, not a
Roman conception at all; in the second place, there is no reason for
Supposing that the hours are those of early morning exclusively. Ser-
vius also makes Janus lord of the day in about the same Sense: Alii
eum (Janum) diei dominum volunt in quo ortus est et occasus.” It
is to be noted here that Janus is god of the closing, as well as of the
opening of the day, and that this statement may equally well be taken
as authority for the supposition that he was god of the evening. These
* Ov. F. 1, 55-56; Cf. ibid. 1, 185-186.
* Carter Relig. Life of Anc. Rome p. 10; Wissowa Relig. u. Kult. p. 109; J. begin-
ning of Chapt. III, quotation from Mommsen.
* Serv. Aen. 7, 607.
20 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
passages imply nothing more than the exaltation of the door-god into
a cosmic deity, the process which affected all the important deities.”
But the most important passage, on which to found a belief in Janus
as “Father of the Morning” is, of course, Horace Satires 2, 6, 20-35.
Matutine pater, seu Iane libentius audis,
unde homines operum primos vitaeque labores
instituunt, sic displacitum, tu carminis esto
principium. Romae sponsorem me rapis.
tº e º ºs e º 'º tº tº e º º e º e º 'º e º e e º 'º
e e º e g º is g g g º e º gº e Ante Secundam
Roscius orabat sibiadesses ad Puteal cras.
The epithet Matutinus is applied to Janus only this one time. It does
not occur in the list of his titles given in Lydus, de Mensibus 4, 1; nor in
Macrobius 1, 9, 15; nor in Servius, ad Aeneidem 7, 610. Before a decision
on the meaning of the title as given in Horace can be reached, it is
necessary to compare this passage with similar expressions found else-
where. The adjective Matutinus is applied to Jupiter once, in Martial
4, 8, 11-12,
tº s tº º e º e º e º 'º gressu timet ire licenti
ad matutinum nostra Thalia Iovem.
which, as the whole poem shows, clearly means, “Our Thalia is afraid
to approach Jupiter (i. e. Domitian) in the morning.” Hardly would
anyone interpret it as meaning “Jupiter father of the morning.”
Compare with this, also, such an expression as this of Horace,
. vespertinus pete tectum."
“Go home in the evening.” It is possible that the quality suggested by
matulinus may be no more a permanent attribute of Janus, than of
Jupiter, or than vespertinus is of the man addressed in Epistle 1, 6.
After considering the other lines of the quotation, it will be possible
to come back to this with a clearer view.
It is well known that lawyers congregated in the Forum near the
Janus Geminus. Rapis, consequently, may mean, “you, Janus,
hurry me off to attend to business near your arch.” The ad Puteal
* Isid. 5, 33, 3; Macrob. 1, 9, 2; 1, 9, 9; 1, 13, 3; Suid. s. v.
* See, however, Linde De Iano Summo Romanorum Deo, Acta Universitatis Lun-
densis 27, p. 37.
* Hor. Epist. 1, 6, 20.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 21
refers, also, to the business section of the Forum. Ovid couples the two
together in the line,
Qui Puteal Ianumque timet, celeresque Kalendas.”
The unde homines operum primos vitaeque labores instituunt may, then,
have no reference to Janus as god of beginnings, but may have two
meanings “from you (i.e. near your arch) men receive the first tasks
of the day; and, from you (i.e. as father of men) men receive the burden
of life.” In tu carminis esto Principium, the poet may be giving merely
the conventional setting to his poem. Janus was regularly invoked
first in any formula. To interpret this invocation and the Matutinus
pater as humorous expressions would be in accordance with the spirit
of the Satire. If these conjectures have any weight, the four lines to-
gether mean, “Father of early-rising business men, or Janus, if thou
preferest, near whose arch men begin the toils of day, and from whom
they receive the burden of life, as it suits the gods; do thou, as patron
of lawyers, begin my song. When I am in Rome, thou hurriest me off
early in the morning as a witness . . . Before the Second hour, Ros-
cius asks you to come to his assistance at the Puteal.” None
of these lines specifies Janus as god of beginnings. Furthermore, Ser-
vius, in quoting the words Matutine pater uses them as evidence that
Janus was god of the closing as well as of the opening of the day.”
Whether or not this interpretation be correct, there remains the argu-
ment, that, at least, there is no mention of any ritual performed in
honor of Janus at dawn. And since it is the religious ceremonies which
determine the character of a deity, there is no ground for considering
Janus the “Father of the Morning.”
It has been shown that Janus was not the god of the first day of
the year, nor of the first day of the month, nor of the first month of
the year in the early calendar, nor of the first hours of the day. It is,
indeed, a strange coincidence that this deity should have had so many
characteristics which can be construed by analogy to mean that he was
patron of the commencement of things—the first month of the year was,
in the later calendar, called by his name; the ceremonies of the inau-
guration of officers brought to him a sort of connection with the dating
of the year; one epithet, Junonius, seemed to connect him with the
* Ov. Rem. Am. 561; cf. Hor. Epist. 1, 1, 54; Sat. 2, 3, 18–19.
* Serv. Aen. 7, 607.
22 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
Kalends; another epithet, Matutinus, appeared to associate him with
the dawn. Added to all this was the fact that he was invoked usually
first in prayers. Two lines from Martial may serve to illustrate the
process by which modern mythologists have come to the conclusion
that Janus was god of beginnings:
Annorum nitidique Sator pulcherrime mundi,
publica quem primum vota precesque vocant.”
To make the door-god a deity presiding over all beginnings would explain
these words easily. He would then be a beginner of time, of the uni-
verse and of prayers. But the interpretation based on the preceding
argument would be—annorum sator, because the civil year began with
his month; mundi sator, an exaltation of Janus into a world deity,
a process which was applied by the poets and philosophers to all the
great divinities. The second line states the fact so often quoted, that
Janus was usually invoked first in prayers. As another example, the
words of Septimius Serenus: o principium deorum,” do not mean that
among the gods Janus was the beginner, but only that he was the first
of the gods. When Arnobius says Incipiamus ergo solemniter ab Iano,”
he is only mocking the conventional custom of beginning prayers with
the name of Janus. He is about to consider the claims to divinity
which might be advanced by the different inhabitants of the pagan
pantheon; he will discuss the deities in due order solemniter and will,
therefore, begin, as the unconverted Romans do, with Janus. St.
Augustine, too, seems to be ridiculing the heathen ritual when he says,
Ianus, igitur, a quo Sumpsit exordium.” In Paulus-Festus is the state-
ment Fuerit omnium primus: Cui primo supplicabant veluti parenti,
et a quo rerum omnium factum putabant initium.” The last clause
in this passage is merely a summary of the other two: “Janus comes
first of the gods, prayers are addressed to him first, therefore the opinion
is that everything began with him, that is, that he was the creator of
the universe.” This is not equivalent to saying that beginnings were
sacred to him. Strangely enough, Cicero makes somewhat the same
statement about Jupiter: Imitemur ergo Aratum, qui magnis de rebus
* Mart. 10, 28, 1-2.
* Septim. Seren. frag. 1, 2 (Lemaire Poet. Lat. Min. p. 633).
* Arnob. 3, 29.
57 S. Aug. C. D. 7, 7.
58 Paulus-Fest. 52.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT - 23
dicere exordiens a Iove incipiendum putat . . . . . utrite abeo dicendi
principia capiamus, quem unum . . . . . regem esse Omnes . . . Con-
sentiunt.” This honor to be paid to Jupiter did not seem to Cicero to
be interfering with the prerogatives of Janus. In short, there is no
record of Janus being invoked at the beginning of undertakings, any
more than were other gods; no ceremonies were performed in his honor
at the beginning of the arbitrary divisions of time; no first fruits were
sacred to him. He simply headed the list of gods.
After this attempted explanation of the extent to which Janus
was god of beginnings, it might be interesting to turn to some of the
theories advanced by the Romans themselves. It will be seen that
even these ancients did not by any means agree that the position of
this deity at the head of the list of gods, and that the place of his month
at the beginning of the year were due to any power of his over begin-
nings. As a reason for his heading the list of gods Macrobius gives:
ut per eum pateat ad illum Cui immolatur accessus, quasi preces suppli-
cium per portas suas ad deos ipse transmittat.” The resemblance of
Janus to a door-way seemed to this author sufficient reason for address-
ing him first. Cicero has much the same opinion, principem in sacri-
ficando Ianum esse voluerunt, quod ab eundo nomen est ductum.”
Ovid, also, says:
. . . “Cur quamvis aliorum numina placem,
Iane, tibi primum tura merumque fero?”
“Ut possis aditum per me, qui limina servo,
ad quoscumque voles,” inquit “habere deos.”
St. Augustine was puzzled by the fact that Janus preceded Jupiter,
although Jupiter seemed to be the higher of the two deities; he attempted
to explain this by saying, quoniam penes Ianum . . . . . Sunt prima,
penes Iovem summa.” Servius thought that Janus was inventor of
speech, and for this reason came first in the prayers which men addressed
to the gods.” St. Augustine was apparently much impressed by the
possibility of drawing comparisons between Janus, the beginner, and
**Cic. Rep. 1, 36, 56; cf. Hor. Od. 1, 12, 13.
*"Macrob. 1, 9, 9.
* Cic. N. D. 2, 27, 67.
* Ov. F. 1, 171-174.
*S. Aug. C. D. 7, 9; J. p. 63, 64.
* Serv. Aen. 7, 610.
24 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
Terminus, the ender." This was reasonable, too, for surely the ending
of any undertaking is as important as the beginning, and, if one deity
watched over the commencement, another ought to guard the outcome.
But the analogy does not work out consistently. If Janus had been the
beginning and Terminus the ending, then in prayers where Janus comes
first, Terminus ought to come last. Such is not the case: Vesta ends
the list, and Terminus never found a place on it at all. Cicero works
out an analogy making Vesta last: Cumque in omnibus rebus vim ha-
berent maximam prima et extrema, principem in sacrificando Ianum
esse voluerunt . . . . Vis autem eius (Vestae) ad aras et focos pertinet.
Itaque in ea dea, quod est rerum custos intimarum, omnis et precatio
et sacrificatio extrema est.” Here the positions of Janus and Vesta, at
the door and in the interior of the house respectively, correspond to
their respective places at the beginning and the end of the list of deities,
but Cicero does not attempt to show that their functions were the
analogical ones of beginner and ender. These passages show how
artificial such explanations were. There is no reference in literature to
an offering either to Vesta or to Terminus as guardians of the ending
of any undertaking, or to Janus as the patron of the beginning of it.
These functions of the deities are merely fanciful conceptions of the
rhetoricians and poets, and had no place in religion proper.
The reasons given by the Romans for making the month of Janus
the beginning of the year are equally various and inconsistent. Plu-
tarch says that Numa named the first month after Janus because he
preferred to honor the god of agriculture and peaceful government rather
than the god of war.” Varro believed it was because Janus was patron of
beginnings.” Ovid says that it was because the first month resembled
a door:
Primus enim Iani mensis, quia ianua prima est.”
Isidorus has much the same idea: Ianuarius mensis a Iano dictus, cuius
fuit a gentilibus consecratus: vel quia limes et ianua sit anni; he then
goes on to say that Janus was represented with two faces because he
* S. Aug. C. D. 7, 7.
* Cic. N. D. 2, 27, 67.
*7 Plut. Numa 19; Q. R. 19.
* Varro L. L. 6, 34.
* Ov. F. 2, 51.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 25
was introitus . . . et exitus anni,” which might imply that he was
god of endings, as well as of beginnings. Suidas makes him the door-
keeper of the year.” Macrobius says that the month of the two-faced
god was the end of the old and the beginning of the new year.” Ser-
vius makes him the god of the year.” Ausonius, spectans tempora bina
simul,” has the same thought. From these passages it appears that
most of the reasons given by the Romans to explain why the month
of Janus was first in the year are analogical, and that the analogy most
frequently employed was that of the opening and closing door.
The place of Janus as god of beginnings may be summed up thus:
After it became the custom for magistrates to enter upon their office
on the first of January and this day became the first of the civil year,
some honor was reflected to Janus from the ceremonies then performed.
Furthermore his name was often used as a synonym for his month. In
Consequence of these two facts, he is often hailed as the beginning of
time. This title always means that he is the beginning of the secular
year. But, as the Romans became familiar with abstract ideas, some
conception of beginning may have been attached to Janus. Such a
notion may have been strengthened by the fact that Janus was invoked
in prayers before the other gods and by such analogies as the follow-
ing: Ianua autem est primus domus ingressus, dicta quia Iano con-
secratum est omne principium.” It is to be noted, however, that this
is the only one of the passages which states definitely that Janus was
god of beginnings. When philosophy brought to the Romans nobler
religious conceptions and caused them to raise their deities to a loftier
plane than that of the earlier numina, Janus, like Jupiter, became a
cosmic deity.” He was the source of all things,” the generator of
all life,” or the original chaos from which all things evolved.” In this
7" Isid. 5, 33, 3-4; cf. 8, 11, 37: Ianum dictum quasi mundi vel caeli vel mensium
ianuan.
71 Suid. s. v.
” Macrob. 1, 9, 9; also Herodian. 1, 16.
7° Serv. Aen. 7, 607.
* Auson. Eclog. 377, 2.
* Serv. Aen. 1,449.
* S. Aug. C. D. 7, 7; Isid. 8, 11, 37; Lyd. Mens. 4, 2; Ov. F. 1, 103-120.
77 Mart. 10, 28, 1.
78 Macrob. 1, 9, 16.
7° Lyd. Mens. 4, 2; Ov. F. 1, 103; 1, 111-114; Paulus-Fest. 52.
26 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
sense he was god of beginnings, but no more so than Jupiter was. The
commencement of actual undertakings was never under the protection of
Janus. The abstraction of beginner, or source, in this Sense, never had
a place in the ritual of the Romans, and even in literature such an idea
is seldom applied to Janus; in fact endings are associated with him as
much as are beginnings.
CHAPTER IV
STATUES OF JANUS
It is well known that the Romans did not represent their gods
by statues until a comparatively late period in their history. It is
said that for over a hundred and seventy years they had no images of
any kind." This state of affairs is attributed to Numa, who, according
to the tradition, had been taught by Pythagoras that it was wrong to
represent the deity in the form of man or beast. All this is, of course,
mere conjecture, and is valuable only so far as it suggests that the
Romans themselves thought that their statues of gods were of foreign
origin. This lack of deities in human form was due, of course, not to
any monotheistic piety on the part of Numa, but to lack of artistic
sense among the Romans, and to the nature of their deities. Their
impersonal divinities, or numina, were hardly distinguishable from the
things in which they dwelt, and, to the primitive worshipers, these
objects were sufficient symbols of the divine presence. After a time,
however, partly under the influence of the Greeks, some of these numina
developed into true anthropomorphic gods and were represented in
art. But Janus was never worshiped in human form. To the end of
pagan belief he remained a door-way, just as Vesta remained “naught
else but living fire.” The evidence for this is the fact that, whereas
of other gods statues and statuettes have been found in great numbers,
and are mentioned again and again in literature, not a single statue of .
Janus has been unearthed, and there are references in Latin writers
to only three. Evidence can be presented to show that at least two
of these were not representations of Janus at all.
One of these statues was brought from Egypt by Augustus. Pliny
gives the following account of it: Item Ianus pater in suo templo
dicatus ab Augusto, ex Aegypto advectus, utrius (Scopae an Praxi-
telis) manu sit, iam quidem et auro Occultatus.” Wissowa's conjecture
that this was a Hermes, and not a Janus, is entirely reasonable, since
*S. Aug. C. D. 4, 31, 2, c; Euseb. Praep. 9, 6; Plut. Numa 8; cf. Clement. Alex.
Strom. 1, 15, 71.
* Ov. F. 6, 291-292.
* Plin. N. H. 36, 5, 4, 28.
28 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
Hermes was often represented with two faces.” Augustus either failed
to recognize the true character of this statue, or else thought that it
would serve as an image of one of those ancient deities, the worship of
whom he was trying so hard to revive.
A statue with four faces was brought from Falerii when that city
was captured by the Romans. Servius says that Domitian tore down
the old arch of Janus Geminus in order to build a new one whose four
openings should correspond to the four faces of the image: the statue
which had been set up by Numa in the old arch was removed to the
Forum Transitorium.” Martial makes this new Janus-arch the subject
of some laudatory verses.” Procopius describes a four-arched passage,
containing a two-faced statue." Lydus says that in his time a Janus
quadrifrons was supposed to be standing in the Forum of Nerva.” Sui-
das mentions a statue having on its fingers the numbers CCCLXV,
standing for the number of the days of the year.” Pliny contradicts
some of these statements by saying that in the arch of Janus Geminus
there was a statue which had been dedicated by Numa as a symbol of
peace and war, and that its fingers were so shaped as to form the figures
CCCLXV.” On the basis of this rather confused evidence one might
suppose that in the Janus-arch there was a statue of some kind; and it
is possible that the first one placed there was very ancient and was, on
that account, attributed to Numa. On the other hand, no writer before
Pliny mentions a statue; it is also possible therefore, that the first one
set up was the one brought from Egypt by Augustus. In that case, the
Numa statue never could have existed, but the arch and the statue both
were ascribed to that mythical king by popular tradition. If that was
the case, there is mention in literature of only two statues of Janus,
neither of which was originally intended to represent that deity. But
this matter is difficult to settle. In the time of Pliny, at any rate, there
was a two-faced statue supposed to represent Janus in the arch of Janus
* Wissowa Relig. u. Kult. p. 106; Hill (Coins of Anc. Sicily p. 208) conjectures
that a Sicilian coin of about 250 B.C., having a janiform head, may be a Hermes
Cf. Head Coins of the Ancients in the British Museum pl. 18, 20; 21.
* Serv. Aen. 7, 607.
• Mart. 10, 28.
7 Procop. Bell. Goth. 1, 20.
*Lyd. Mens. 4, 1.
* Suidas s. v.
10 Plin. N. H. 34, 7, 16, 33; Cf. J. pp. 41 sq.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 29
Geminus, and on its fingers were the figures CCCLXV. This image,
whether the one of Augustus, or an older one, was removed by Do-
mitian, and a new Janus-arch with four openings was built to hold
the quadrifrons from Falerii. This later passage-way, even though it
had four arches, must still have been called Janus Geminus, because
this name was connected with the cult of Janus in that place and
must, therefore, have become stereotyped. On account of the name,
Procopius may have taken it for granted that the statue was a bifrons.
He does not speak as though he had seen it himself. He simply says
of it, constat fuisse. The conception of Janus as god of the seasons
was associated with the four-arched passage and its quadrifrons."
The important thing in this connection is not to decide about the
shape and final disposition of the statues, but to note that, in spite
of the prominence of Janus in the worship of the Romans, and not-
withstanding the analogy between the later literary character of Janus
and a two-faced or four-faced figure, there were only two, or at most
three statues of the god at Rome, so far as can be determined. Of these
two were certainly not originally intended to represent Janus. The
conclusion to be drawn from this is that Janus was not conceived by
his worshipers as a human figure, but that the true image of him was
the arch which was called by his name, the Janus Geminus.
* Lyd. Mens. 4, 1; Serv. Aen. 7, 607.
CHAPTER V
THE CONNECTION OF JANUs witH EARLY COINAGE
The lack of statues of Janus is the more remarkable in view of the fact
that a representation of him as a two-faced deity must have been seen and
handled often by the Romans, when they transacted business by means
of the old as." Since this head appears on the most ancient round
coins of the Romans, it has been supposed” that this was the one true
Italic representation of a deity, the only anthropomorphic divinity
which the Romans developed independent of the influence of other
nations. According to this theory, the image originated in the concep-
tion of Janus as a door-god. As a door serves as entrance and as exit,
So the Spirit of the door came to be represented as looking both ways at
the same time; then, because a harbor is, in a certain sense, an entrance,
the door-god came to be the presiding deity of harbors and of the com-
merce which came and went by way of the harbor; for this reason his
head was represented on the first coins.”
But, since other nations worshiped two-faced divinities,” it would
Seem more probable that the Romans had copied this, as they did
other images of their gods. Another difficulty with the previous theory
is that the two-faced Janus, so far as can be known, was represented
nowhere except on these coins, and it seems hardly probable that the
only native anthropomorphic deity should have had so restricted an
existence. For, as has been said, of the three statues of Janus men-
tioned in literature, two were without doubt of foreign origin, and of
the other nothing is known with certainty."
It seems more reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the Concep-
tion of a double face was a foreign one grafted on to Janus, just as
happened in the case of the attributes of many other divinities; and
* Babelon Monn. de la répub. I, p. 21 sq.; Baumeister Denk. II, p. 964, no. 1158;
p. 966, no. 1166; p. 967, no. 1175; Cohen Monn. de emp. II, p. 355–356, no. 881; III,
p. 392, no. 17; Monn. de la répub. pl. XXIX; XLVI; XLVIII; LII; LIV Sq; LXVII;
Darem. & Saglio s. v. Ianus p. 610; Mommsen Hist. de la monn. rom. pl. V, 1; XVII,
5 & 6.
* Mommsen Hist. I, pp. 213-214; 225.
* Cf. Wissowa Relig. u. Kult. p. 105, for different view.
* See J. p. 27; Overbeck Kunstmyth pp. 91, 92, 476, 478.
* See J. Chapt. IV.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 31
that the notion of a two-faced deity did not arise through analogy at all,
but by a different process, which can be traced out with at least some
degree of probability and may have been somewhat as follows: it has
been seen that Janus held the first place in the list of gods, and that,
when a prayer was made to the great divinities of the state, his name
regularly came first. He usually received a preliminary offering even
when a special sacrifice was made in honor of some other deity." The
Romans held this custom very tenaciously, even after more attractive
gods who were of foreign origin or who had developed under foreign
influence had usurped the principal place in their worship. Janus
must have gained this important place in the ritual because of this
prečminence at the time when the religion was in the formative stage;
so that when the ceremonial became stereotyped, he held this fixed
position long after he ceased to satisfy the spiritual needs of the people.
It has been seen that, because he was the special household god of the
head of the family, Janus came to be invoked as an aid in many activi-
ties which were not originally under his jurisdiction." According to
the theory first quoted, Janus was god of the door, and, because of
the resemblance between a door and a harbor, he became god of har-
bors and was represented on coins. But it is difficult to imagine that
these early Romans took a census of their divinities to discover which
one presided over an activity most like that in which they were about
to engage. It is most natural, on the other hand, to suppose that the
worshipers of Janus turned spontaneously to the god who was upper-
most in their minds. Having asked the assistance of Janus in their
business affairs, they would soon identify him with the Greek god of
trade, since they were very ready to consider their divinities the coun-
terparts of foreign ones of like function. Now the Greeks occasionally
represented some of their gods as two-faced. Hermes was often so
fashioned. There even existed coins of this sort.” When once the
double-faced Hermes was presented to the Romans as corresponding
to their Janus, the analogy between this symbol and the door-god
* See J. Chapter III.
* J. Chapt. I.
* Athen. 15, 46; Darem. & Saglio 1, pp. 91-92; p. 419, fig. 508; Overbeck Kunst-
myth. pp. 476 sqq.; Hill, Coins of Sicily p. 150; Ward Greek Coins pl. 8, fig. 308;
Catalogue Coins in Brit. Mus. 1892, 1, p. 79; pp. 80, 82-84; 1873, 9 f.; 1897 pp. 91 ff.;
J. p. 28, note 4.
32 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
would undoubtedly help to fix the conception. The cult name Geminus,
which Janus had received from his arch, would aid in establishing the
idea.” This cannot be proved with the certainty of a mathematical
formula, but, in addition to the reasonableness of the theory, some
facts may be adduced which add to its probability.
The coins bearing a Janus head often had on the reverse the repre-
sentation of a ship's prow. These asses must have been at one time
quite common, for Macrobius says that Roman boys in a game some-
what like “tossing pennies” called capita aut navia. This circumstance
Macrobius takes to be a proof of the antiquity of this sort of coinage.”
Athenaeus says that Janus is represented on the as because it was he
who invented the art of stamping money; and that the ship appears
because he invented navigation.” Servius makes the ship a repre-
sentation of the one in which Janus came to Italy.” Macrobius, on
the other hand, thinks that it was Saturn who came over the sea, and
that, being kindly received by Janus, who was king at that time, he
rewarded the friendly monarch by teaching him and his subjects the
arts of civilization. In gratitude for his practical education, Janus
had Saturn's ship placed on the coins.” Ovid gives much the same
account, but says that it was pious posterity which preserved the memory
of the ship by picturing it on coins.” Plutarch asks the question, “How
is it that they imagine Janus to have had two faces?” and, in reply
to his own query, he conjectures, “Is it because he, being a Greek,
came from Perrhaebia, as we learn from historians; and passing forward
into Italy, dwelt in that country among the barbarous people who
there lived, whose language and manner of life he changed? Or rather
because he taught and persuaded them to live together after a civil and
honest sort, in husbandry and tilling the ground, whereas formerly
their manners were rude and their fashion Savage without law or jus-
tice altogether.” The two-faced Janus must have been a great puzzle
to this inquirer, for he devotes to him another chapter also; “What is
* J. p. 41.
10 Macrob. 1, 7, 22.
* Athen. 15, 46.
**Serv. Aen. 8, 357.
* Macrob. 1, 7, 19-21.
* Ov. F. 1, 239-240.
is Plut. Q. R. 22.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 33
the reason that the ancient coin and money in antiquity carried the stamp
on one side of Janus with two faces? and on the other the prow or
poop of a boat? Was it to honor Saturn who came to Italy in a ship?
But Janus, Evander, and Aeneas came in ships. More likely because
Janus instituted good government, civilized the Italians, and furnished
necessities which were brought by sea and land. The two faces stand
for the change of life that Janus brought in, and the boat stands for
the river.” Servius gives the bare explanation that Janus came as
an exile in a ship, and on this account his head is stamped on one side
of coins, and on the other a ship.” Minucius Felix reverts to the story
that Saturn fled from Crete to Italy and was received hospitably by
Janus. Out of gratitude, since he was a Greek of culture, he taught the
rude and uncivilized Italians many things, among them, to write, to
coin money, and to make tools. Janus, therefore, named the country
“Saturnia” and “Latium” in his honor.” Plutarch, on the other
hand, makes Janus himself teach these arts to the people, “For this
Janus, in the most remote antiquity, whether a demi-god or a king,
being remarkable for his political abilities, and his cultivation of Society,
reclaimed men from their rude and savage manners; he is therefore
represented with two faces, as having altered the former state of the
world, and given quite a new turn to life.” Macrobius” says that
religious rites and sacrifices were first established by Janus, and that
his two faces, therefore, look towards the past and towards the future.
Lydus expresses much the same idea.”
The gist of the passages may be put briefly as follows: Janus either
on his own initiative, or under the influence of Saturn, introduced into
Italy a knowledge of the arts of civilization, of religious rites and of
coinage. The writers realized that this culture originated in Greece
and came to Italy in a ship. Now, as is well known, the Romans had
commerical relations with the Greeks in very early times, especially
with those of Sicily.” The truth, therefore, underlying these somewhat
* Plut. Q. R. 41.
17 Serv. Aen. 8, 357.
* Minuc. Felix 21, 5-6.
* Plut. Numa 19.
* Macrob. 1, 9, 2-4.
* Lyd. Mens. 4, 2.
*Liv. 4, 25; 4, 52; Mommsen Hist. I, p. 231; pp. 258-259.
34 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
contradictory myths must be that when the Romans were still in the
early stages of civilization, Greek traders came up the Tiber, bringing
with them some knowledge of the arts of life and having as their patron
a two-faced god. Since the appearance of the ships, of the coins, of
the civilized arts, and of the god with the two faces was simultaneous,
tradition linked them all together in these stories. In this connection
it is interesting to note that Athenaeus says that Janus invented coinage
and that on that account his head appears on many Greek and Sicilian
coins.” He is evidently simply reversing the process, for it was these
Greek and Sicilian coins which were the prototypes of the Roman, not
the other way about. Athenaeus, although he must have been familiar
with coins of this sort, made the same mistake that Augustus and Domi-
tian did in identifying the symbol.”
Although the Romans saw and handled constantly the coin having
the double-faced head of Janus, yet, in spite of all the nice analogies to
be noted between a door and such an image, and in spite of the pro-
minence of the deity in worship, they were not moved to make other
representations of him in this form. This is significant of the fact
that the two-faced Janus was a god of coins only; that aside from these
coins, he was not thought of in this shape. Therefore Ovid's state-
ment that Janus had no Greek counterpart is true.” The identity of
the Greek Hermes and of the Janus of the same form never occurred
to the poet, partly, perhaps, because they were alike in so few particu-
lars, and partly because the identification of Hermes with Mercury had
obscured the early association of Hermes with Janus.
The Janus Portunus who was worshiped near the Tiber as a pro-
tector of grain, may be associated with the Janus of early commerce.
Portunus is identified in Paulus-Festus with the Greek Palaemon.”
Professor Fowler, arguing from an obscure passage in the Veronese
Commentary on Vergil Aeneid 5, 241, comes to the conclusion that
Portunus was not originally a god of harbors at all, but that he was guar-
dian of the door to the granary in the Forum Boarium.” This bril-
* Athen. 15, 46; cf. J. Chapt. IV. See Carter Relig. of Numa; p. 77, 79; Hill
Handbook of Greek and Roman Coins p. 45, for possible date of these Roman coins.
- *J. Chapt. IV.
* Ov. F. 1, 90.
* Fest. 242, 243; Cf. Verg. Aen. 5, 241.
* Fowler Rom. Fest. pp. 202-204.
JANU'S IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 35
liant theory explains the keys that are assigned to him. It shows clearly,
also, how he came to be an off-shoot of Janus: he was a localized form
of the door-god. He became patron of harbors, probably, because his
prototype Janus was a god of harbors and partly because the store-
house over which Portunus presided was near the Tiber. When grain
was being transported up the Tiber in times of scarcity, the deity who
guarded it in the storehouse probably extended his protection to it as
it lay in the harbor close by. Thus he became protector of the boat-
landing.
The festivals of Portunus and of Tiberinus fall on August 17th,
which was the dedication day also of the temple of Janus built by
Duilius.” The coincidence of the dates may be accidental. Momm-
sen, however, identifies Portunus with Tiberinus. In addition to the
coincidence of the dates of the Portunalia and of the Tiberinalia, the
fact that the two festivals were held in the same part of the city, near
the Forum Boarium, may be considered as a support for this theory.”
If, however, Professor Fowler's theory that Portunus was originally
guardian of the annona be correct, these must have been distinct deities,
for Tiberinus must surely have been primarily god of the Tiber. To
make the matter still more difficult to untangle, there is yet another
ancient deity, Volturnus, who must also have been a river god. For
the same name Volturnus was applied to a river in Campania, and the
Fasti Vallenses have a note under August 27, Volturni flumini sacri-
ficium.” Varro says that the origin of Volturnus was obscure, but
that he had a flamen.” This is about all the information which is to
be had about the deity.” Arnobius represents Janus as the father
of Fons and the husband of Juturna, who was the daughter of Wol-
turnus.” The explanation of all this may possibly be as follows: In
very ancient times, Volturnus was the god of the river; but at this time
the people were interested only in flocks and fields, and the god, Con-
sequently, was a power only to be feared because of his destructive floods.
But, later, the commerce made possible by the navigable Tiber caused
* CIL. I, p. 399 (Aug. 17); Cf. J. p. 44.
* CIL. I, p. 399 (Aug. 17); 1, 407 (Dec. 8).
* CIL. I, p. 400. Cf. Paulus-Fest. 379.
* Varro L. L. 7, 45. Cf. ibid. 6, 20.
* See Mommsen's note in CIL. I, p. 400.
* Arnob. 3, 29.
36 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
that body of water to be propitiated from other motives than fear for
the safety of crops and herds. At this time the name Tiberinus was
given to the god, either because the river had now changed its name
from Volturnus to Tiber or because the new function required a new god.
However this may be, it is at least reasonable to conjecture that
at the time when Janus, the door-spirit, had become patron of ship-
ping, Portunus, who was originally Janus Portunus, became guardian
of the state granary. He developed into a harbor god, partly under
the influence of Janus in that capacity, partly because the storehouse
was near the river. Then Volturnus, the old god of the flowing river,
was obscured by the divinity of the commercially valuable Tiber. Both
Portunus and Tiberinus probably developed later than Volturnus.
Professor Fowler suggests that the fact that the flamen of Tiberinus
could be a plebeian may denote a late origin of the cult.” And C.
- Duilius probably dedicated a temple to Janus because at that time Janus
was god of ships. The fact that he chose August 17 as the natal
day of his temple may possibly show that he connected Janus with the
gods of the river and of the harbor. In later times most of the old Roman
gods were obscured by the Greek importations and Mercury became
the god of commerce. But Janus held his position on the as as a remi-
niscence of his former importance in trade; Tiberinus and Portunus had a
festival somewhere near the Tiber; while Volturnus had but the faintest
traces left to him of his ancient worship. The Roman mythologists
attempted to explain the confusion of deities exercising almost the same
function by making them relatives.
* Fowler Rom. Fest. p. 202.
CHAPTER VI
JANUS GEMINUS AND OTHER JANUS-ARCHES AND TEMPLES
The true representation of Janus was no statue or image of any
kind: it was the arch in the Forum called Ianus Geminus, the gates of
which were opened in time of war and closed in time of peace." This
was the real Janus, the symbolical entrance-way, the locus of the cult
of the door-way of the state, just as Vesta, in her little round temple,
was the symbolical hearth of the city. The arch was the god himself,
and it was nearly always called “Janus,” not “temple of Janus,” or
“arch of Janus.” The gates were the “gates of Janus,” not the “gates
of the arch of Janus.” The arch, at some time, contained a statue *
but Janus was not the image, or any spiritualization of it. The god
was the door-way itself, and seldom was this called anything but “Janus.”
In this respect Janus retained his primitive character of numen. Vesta
and Janus were the only great Roman deities that were not affected
by Greek anthropomorphism. They kept their ancient animistic
character almost unchanged throughout the whole period of Roman
religion.
The cult of the Ianus Geminus originated in a period so remote
that it is only by careful analysis that a faint conception of the con-
ditions can be gained. It is quite generally conceded that the Roman .
state worship was but the counterpart of that of the family. As the
father was the religious head of the household,” so the early king was the
chief of the religion of the community. The king's hearth was the
central fireplace, his daughters tended the fire. In historical times the
Vestal virgins took the place of the king's daughters, and the temple
of Vesta became the hearth of the city.” If the parallelism had been
complete, it would be expected that the state door-way would be the
entrance to the king's palace. This dwelling of the king was later
* Hor. Sal. 1, 4, 60-61; Serv. Aen. 7, 610; Suidas s. v.; Verg. Aen. 1, 293–296;
J. Chapt. IV. cf. Liv. 1, 19.
* See references cited in this Chapter. Note the awkward personification in
Stat. Silv. 4, 1, 11-44.
*J. Chapt. IV.
* Cato R. R. 143.
* Bailey Relig. of Ancient Rome pp. 75 ff.; Carter Relig. of Numa pp. 12-15; Fowler
Rom. Fest. pp. 283, 288, 335; Cf. Dion. of Hal. 2, 14; J. pp. 45 sq.
38 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
represented by the Regia." To complete the analogy, then, the state
Janus should have been the door to this Regia. How, instead of this,
the symbolical entrance came to be an independent building, an anomaly,
a door-way leading to no edifice, remains an insoluble mystery. Varro
identifies the Janus-arch with the Porta Ianualis, which, he says was
the third of the gates leading to the Palatine city.” If his assumption
were correct, the Ianus Geminus would be the survival, not of the king's
door-way, but of a city gate; and Janus would have been the patron
of gates, as well as of doors. In this case, the cult must have become
localized at the Porta Ianualis, which was preserved, on account of
religious conservatism, long after the city had outgrown the wall to
which it had served as an opening. It is possible that the cult of Ianus
Geminus originated in some such way as this. It seems strange, how-
ever, if Janus ever were protector of the city gates, that he did not con-
tinue in that office, since Rome was continually beset by enemies, and
always had ample need of protection at her gates. One would expect
the cult to move out along with the new gates of each successive wall;
for had such a practice ever existed, there was never a sufficient inter-
val of peace, during the stormy period of the city's growth to allow her
to forget the ceremony. Consequently, it seems hardly possible that
any rites were ever performed at the city gates. Furthermore, Plu-
tarch expressly states that the city gates were not sacred to any god.”
In historical times, at all events, the Romans remained satisfied with
the protection of Janus at the one symbolical gate. Moreover, Macro-
bius seems to consider the Porta Ianualis and the Janus-arch as two
distinct buildings, since he says that in the Sabine war, Rome's ene-
mies were overwhelmed by water which burst ex aede Iani per hanc
portam.” Probably the origin of the arch was obscured by antiquity
as deeply for Varro and Macrobius as it is for modern scholars. If there
ever was a Porta Ianualis, its existence might even be taken as slight
evidence for the supposition that Janus was not a god of gates. For,
if all gates were sacred to him, it is hardly likely that his name would
have been attached to only one. This is, however, merely conjectural,
and is worth no more than similar guesses of the Roman etymologists.
*J. p. 45–46.
7 Varro L. L. 5, 165; Cf. Platner, p. 191, note 10.
* Plut. Q. R. 27.
° Macrob. 1, 9, 17-18.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 39
One thing only is certain, whatever the origin of the arch may have been,
that it represented a passageway, and that it was Janus himself. The cult,
moreover, was so deeply rooted as to be one of the last traces of Paganism
to be abandoned. In the time of Belisarius, about two centuries after
Christianity became the state religion, at the beginning of the war with
the Goths, some persons at Rome opened the doors of the old Ianus
Geminus." So deeply rooted was the feeling that no war could be
begun properly without this ancient ceremony.
In the tempestuous history of Rome, there were but few periods
during which the “gates of war” were closed. Tradition says that
Numa, the advocate of peace, founded the arch, and that during the
forty-three years of his reign, the gates remained shut." After that
they were open constantly until after the first Punic war. Then came
a short interval of peace.” Again for over two hundred years there
was strife, until the time of Augustus. He closed the gates at least
three times, perhaps four.” One of these periods of tranquility in-
cluded the date traditionally assigned to the birth of Christ, a fact that
deeply impressed the minds of the early Christians.”
The gates were closed again during the reign of Nero,” under Ves-
pasian,” perhaps under Domitian,” during the joint reign of Marcus
Aurelius and Commodus,” under Constantine,” and under Honorius.”
10 Procop. Bel. Goth. 1, 25. (Teubner ed.)
* S. Aug. C. D. 3, 9; 3, 10; Flor. Epit. 1, 18, 1; Liv. 1, 19; Plut. Fortuna Rom.
9; Numa 20; Serv. Aen. 1, 291; 1, 294; Varro L. L. 5, 165; Vell. Pater. 2, 38, 3; Aur.
Vict. Vir. Ill. 79; Mommsen Res Gestae Divi Aug. p. 50.
* Note 11 above. Servius, however, in Aen. 1, 291, makes the misstatement
that the temple was closed after the Second Punic war, but Varro and others unite
in saying that it was after the First.
* CIL. I, p. 312; p. 384, Mommsen's note on Jan. 11; Dio Cass. 51, 20; 53, 26;
54, 36 (On this occasion the gates were not closed, on account of a revolt of the Da-
cians.); Hor. Od. 4, 15, 8-9; Epist. 2, 1, 253–255; Liv. 1, 19; Mon. Ancyr. cap. 13, pp.
L-LI; pp. 49 ff. (Mommsen's ed.); Oros. 1, 1; 6, 20; 6, 21; 6, 22; 7, 3; Ov. F. 1, 282;
Plut. Fortuna Rom.9; Numa 20; Serv. Aen. 1, 291; Suet. Aug. 22; Vell. Pater. 2, 38, 3;
Aur. Vict. Vir. Ill. 79; William Fairley Trans. and Reprints, Mon. Ancyr. pp. 36-37.
* Oros. 1, 1; 6, 22; 7, 3; 7, 9; Cf. Milton Hymn to the Nativity.
* Lucan. Phars. 1, 61-62; Suet. Nero 14; see also note 23, p. 40.
* Oros. 7, 3; 7, 9; 7, 20.
17 Stat. Silv. 4, 1.
* Lamprid. Wit. Comm. 16; Aur. Vict. Caes. 27.
* Amm. Marc. 16, 10, 1.
* Claudian XXII Laud. Stilich. 2, 286-287; XXVIII VI Cos. Hon. 637-641.
40 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
It is said that they were opened during Gordian's reign,” therefore it
is safe to assume that they had been closed previously. There is no
mention of any other opening or closing of the arch, except the one lapse
into pagan practice at the beginning of the war with the Goths.” This
is the last account of the ceremony.
There are no remains identified as belonging to the Ianus Geminus.
It is fairly certain, however, that it was situated in the northeast end
of the Forum, near the entrance to the Argiletum.” Originally it had
two openings. It is probably due to this fact, not to any character
of the deity, that Janus was called Geminus.” There is a representation
of the structure on coins of Nero,” from which it appears to have been
a small building, barely large enough to accommodate a pair of double
doors with heavy bolts. The description by Procopius corresponds
to the picture on the coin, but does not agree with Martial, or with
Servius, according to whom, Domitian, when he rebuilt and enlarged
the arch, changed it from a bifrons to a quadrifrons, in order to make the
openings correspond to the four faces of the Falerian statue which he
intended to set up in it.” A possible explanation is, that by the time
of Procopius the structure had been changed again to a two-arched
passage; or, that the author of de Bello Gothico was misled by the epi-
thet Geminus. He described the statue, however, as a quadrifrons.
Probably he never saw the building.” In addition, some of the incon-
* Jul Capit. Wit. Gord. 26; Eutrop. 9, 2; Oros. 7, 19.
* Procop. Bell. Goth. 1, 25; J. p. 28.
* CIL. I, p. 395, June 9; Liv. 1, 19; Ov. F. 1, 258 (but cf. Platner p. 191); Met.
14,785–786; Procop. Bell. Goth. 1, 25; SerA. Aen. 7,607(Servius says, SVNT GEMINAE
BELLI PORTAE Sacrarium hoc, id est, belli portas Numa Pompilius fecerat circum
imum Argiletum iuxta theatrum Marcelli. Quod fuit in duobus brevissimis templis:
duobus autem propter Ianum bifrontem. . . . That the arch was iuxta theatrum
Marcelli is clearly impossible. He has evidently confused the Janus Geminus with
the temple of Duilius, See J. p. 44.); Gilbert Geschichte u. Top. der Stadt Rom 1, p. 321;
Huelsen Rom. For. pp. 134 sqq. (Carter’s trans.); Platner pp. 190 ft.
2. J. p. 29.
* Baumeister Denk. 1, p. 234, fig, 206; Cohen Monn. de l'imp. 1, p. 287, 114;
p. 289, 141.
* Mart. 10, 28; Serv. Aen. 7, 607; J. Chapt. IV.
27 J. p. 29; Cf. Plut. Fortuna Rom. 9; Numa 20; Stat. Silv. 4, 1, 13-14; Verg. Aen.
1, 294; 7, 610. According to Platner (p. 268), Domitian did not rebuild the old Janus
Geminus, but set up an additional one in the Forum of Nerva. Cf. J. Chapt. IV.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 41
sistencies in descriptions of form and situation may be due to the re-
buildings of the arch; for the Janus must have been rebuilt several times,
as were the other buildings in the Forum.
To the ceremonies attending the opening and closing of the “gates
of war and peace” there are but few references, and these must be
pieced together in order to make any complete picture. Vergil and his
commentator, Servius, say that the consul, when opening the gates,
wore the trabea of Quirinus.” Macrobius connects the two epithets of
Janus, Patulcius and Clusius, with the opening and closing of the doors.”
Ovid says that these names were used at the time when the priest offered
up a cake of meal and salt.” In Paulus-Festus mention is made of the
cake Ianual which was offered only to Janus.* Cato tells of an offering
of strues,” a word which, in Paulus-Festus is described as consisting of
strips of bread laid crosswise, one above the other.” It is possible that
Ianual and strues were different names for the same thing, and that the
strues mentioned in Paulus-Festus was the same as that offered to Janus
in the ritual described by Cato: in that case they were the offering made
in the field. As to any other place of offering, nothing is said in these
passages. But Macrobius quotes Varro for the statement that there
existed twelve altars to Janus, a number corresponding to the number
of months in a year.” If these twelve altars really existed, they were
set up at a late period, for, as has been shown, it was not until 153 B.C.
that the month of Janus became the first of the year, and that Janus
became, by a figure of speech, a leader of time.” The erecting of these
altars would correspond, perhaps, to the placing of the figures CCCLXV
on the fingers of the statue in the arch.” It is certain that these numerals
were a late invention, because the Romans did not have a year of 365
days until 45 B.C.” All that can be said, then, with certainty
about the ceremonies in honor of Janus is that his gates were opened
28 Serv. Aen. 7, 610; Verg. Aen. 7, 607-614.
29 Macrob. 1, 9, 16; Cf. Lyd. Mens. 4, 1.
30 Ov. F. 1, 127-130.
31 Paulus-Festus 104.
32 Cato R. R. 134.
83 Paulus-Festus 310.
* Macrob. 1, 9, 16.
* J. Chapt. III. p. 28 sq.
* J. Chapt. IV, note 10, p. 28.
87 Fowler Rom. Fest. p. 4; J. Chapt. IV.
42 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
by a consul attired in an ancient religious garb; that a cake called Ianua
and one called strues were offered to Janus; that at the offering of some
cakes, whether of these or of others, the god was addressed as Patul-
cius and Clusius; that these names were connected in some way with
the opening and closing of the arch; that in the last years of the republic,
or in the first of the empire, twelve altars were erected to Janus, and
the figures CCCLXV were placed on the fingers of his statue.
In time of peace, when of course, the Janus-arch was closed, an
augurium salutis was taken by the new consul.” The fact that Augus-
tus performed this long-neglected ceremony, when he closed the gates
of Janus, does not necessarily indicate any other connection between the
augurium and Janus beyond the fact that both were concerned with
peace.”
The part of the Forum in which bankers, money-lenders and lawyers
had their places of business, was often called ad Ianum, or ad Ianum
medium. Cicero so uses the expression in De Officiis 2, 87: De collo-
canda pecunia commodius a quibusdam optimis viris ad Ianum medium
sedentibus disputatur and in Philippic 6, 5, 15: L. Antonio a Iano medio
Patrono. Itane? . . . . . quis umquam in illo Iano inventus est
qui L. Antonio mille nummum ferret expensum? and Horace in Satires,
2, 3, 18–20:
e e e g tº Postduam omnis res mea Ianum
ad medium fracta est; aliena negotia curo,
excussus propriis.
In Ovid, Remedia Amoris 561;
Qui Puteal Ianumque timet, celeresque Kalendas,
the same region is meant, but is called Ianus, not Ianus medius, and
includes the Puteal. In Horace Satire 2, 6, 20–23, the Puteal is men-
tioned alone as a meeting-place of lawyers and of business men. These
passages seem to show that “Janus” was a portion of the Forum, of
indefinite area, in which business was transacted. In Horace, Epistles,
1, 20, 1-2, Janus and Vortumnus are given as objects which will be
seen by a book ambitious for public notice.” For an interpretation
88 Dio Cass. 37, 24.
* Dio Cass. 51, 20; Suet. Aug. 31; Bailey Rom. Relig. p. 98. Cf. Cic. Div. 1, 105;
Paulus-Fest. 161; J. p. 39.
* Cf. Cic. Verr. 1, 154, and Asconius' note; Liv. 44, 16; Prop. 4, 2; Varro L. L.
5, 46.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 43
of this passage, it is not necessary to assume that a statue of Vortum-
nus and a Janus-arch stood near the shop of the Sosii, where the book
would be exposed for sale. It is more probable that the poet is merely
calling attention to two prominent things which may be seen by the
book from the shop, or when purchased and carried off through the
Forum.41
Horace, Epistles 1, 1, 53-54:
tº ſº tº e º quaerenda pecunia primum est,
e tº e º 'º Haec Janus summus ab imo
prodocet,
in conjunction with the passages in which Janus medius is mentioned,
has been taken as evidence that there were three Janus arches in the
Forum, Ianus Medius, Janus Summus and Janus Imus.” The lines
above would then mean, “From the upper to the lower Janus-arch
this is taught.” Bentley arguing from the fact that the words summus,
imus and medius are often used of an inclined street, concluded that
ad Ianum was the name of a street.* It is more probable, however,
that ad Ianum means simply an indefinite portion of the Forum. In
that case, ad Ianum medium is “in the middle” of this area or “near
the Janus-arch which stands in the middle of the Forum,” and Ianus
summus ab imo means “from one end to the other of the business
Section of the Forum.”
There were other arches called Iani, but none had the sanctity
of the Janus Geminus.” There was one, probably, at the foot of the
Janiculum;" another, a bifrons, which still stands in the Velabrum,
was built by the silversmiths in honor of Septimius Severus, his wife and
two sons; near this is a quadrifrons, the date of which is uncertain.18
The Tigillum Sororum is sometimes given in the list of Janus-arches.
It is doubtful whether however, this was a Janus.” The Janus Quadri-
* Huelsen For. Rom. p. 65 ff.
* Gilbert Geschichte und Top. der Stadt Rom 3, pp. 215 sqq.
* Bentley on Hor. Epist. 1, 1, 54; So also Richter Top. p. 106 f.; Lanciani
Ruins p. 251 Sqq; Bull. della Commissione Archeoolgica Communali di Roma 1890, 100.
“Jordan 1, 2, 213 sqq.
* Platner p. 257.
*Cic. N. D. 2, 27, 67; Liv. 41, 27; 2,49; Ov. F. 1, 257; Suet. Aug. 31.
* Darem. and Saglio s. v. Ianus; Roscher Lex. col. 22.
*Jordan 1, 2, pp. 471 sq.; Platner p. 403.
*J. Chapt. IX.
*r-sy.
44 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
frons built by Domitian in the Forum Transitorium, or Forum Nervae,
is sometimes counted as another Janus-arch, but, as has been shown,
this may have been only a rebuilding of the old Janus Geminus.” Augus-
tus may have built a new arch to shelter the statue which he brought
from Egypt, but here also there is uncertainty as to whether the
reference is to a new arch or to the old Janus Geminus.”
These Iani, as well as the triumphal arches which are not generally
so designated, constitute, one of the original contributions of the Romans
to the architecture of the world. It is to be seen, however, that they
were the result, not of a sudden inspiration, but of a strange dissocia-
tion of the door, Janus, from the building to which it had, at one time,
been an entrance.
The only true temple that Janus ever had was the one near the
Porta Carmentalis,” built by C. Duilius in fulfillment of a vow.” This
site was called, but obviously not until the time of Augustus, ad Thea-
trum Marcelli. On August 17 and on October 18 offerings were made
there.” These dates mark respectively the natal day of the temple
and the date of its restoration. The fact that Duilius vowed a temple
to Janus shows that the god of doors was a war god, and was important
to warriors even as late as the Punic wars. The fact that the dedica-
tion day of this temple was made to coincide with the festivals of Tiberi-
nus and Portunus cannot be taken as proof of the association of Janus
with these two deities. As has been said, the coincidence of the dates
of the two festivals may have been purely accidental.”
50 J. Chapt. IV.
*J. Chapt. IV, p. 27.
*Liv. 2, 49, 8; Paulus-Fest. 285.
* Tacit. Ann. 2, 49.
* CIL. 1, p. 320; 399. Aust Aedibus Sacris p. 18; Fowler Rom. Fest. pp. 202 sqq.
* Fowler Rom, Fest. pp. 204 ff.; J. p. 34.
CHAPTER VII
THE REX SACRORUM
Mention has been made of the theory that the primitive worship
of the Roman state was the counterpart of that of the household. In
accordance with this hypothesis, the king was the religious head of the
community, performing for the state the office which the father per-
formed for his household; the king's daughters who attended the state's
Vesta, filled, in the state, the place of the daughters in a family; and the
entrance to the king's dwelling must have been the seat of the Janus of
the city'.
As late as republican days there were found remnants of this paral-
lelism. A rex sacrorum performed for the state some of the duties of
the ancient king; Vestal virgins cared for the sacred fire; the Janus
Geminus in the Forum was the symbolical door-way of the state. The
natural inference is that the rex sacrorum was the priest of this public
Janus, as the father of each household was priest of his own domestic
Janus. This is the usual explanation of the “king of sacred things.”
It must be confessed that the parallelism is very attractive. It can
hardly be expected, however, that a state religion, though in the begin-
ning it may have been an exact reproduction of domestic worship, would
continue to furnish a perfect counterpart when, in the growing com-
plexity of civilization, the commonwealth developed many phases of
activity not found in the household. For this reason, some discrepan-
cies are to be observed in the comparison. One of these has been noted,
that originally Janus must have resided in the entrance to the king's
palace. In the Republic, the Regia was the survival of this royal
dwelling. It was the seat of the state religion of an earlier epoch.
Its sacred character is shown by the sacrifices performed there, by the
wreaths placed above its door, and by the religious articles kept in its
sacraria,” but, in spite of this, it was not the door of the Regia, but
*J. pp. 1-2; 37-38.
* Bailey Relig. of Ancient Rome p. 77; Carter Relig. of Numa p. 13; Fowler Rom.
Fest. pp. 334-335; Relig. Experience of the Rom. People pp. 126 ff.; Wissowa Relig.
w. Kult, pp. 509 f.
*Dion. of Hal. 2, 70; Gell. 4, 6, 1; Macrob. 1, 12, 6; 1, 15, 19; Ov. F. 3, 135-144;
Fest. 186; 278; 279; Plut. Numa 14, 15; Rom. 29; Serv. Aen. 7, 603; 8, 363; Varro
L. L. 6, 21; Fowler Rom. Fest. pp. 35-36, 39, 44, 213, 324; cf. Ov. Trist. 3, 1, 30;
Solin. 1, 21; Tacit. Ann. 15, 41; J. p. 62.
46 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
an entirely distinct edifice, the Janus Geminus, which was the sym-
bolical state door, the Janus of the whole Republic.”
Another disagreement between the republican, and the primitive
organization, one that more nearly concerns this Chapter, is the fact
that, although the Vestals took the place of the king's daughters, yet
the rex sacrorum, the survival of the primitive king, was not their official
father; for it was the pontifex maximus, a person not found at all in the
primitive order of things, who held these maidens under his potestas.”
Whether the usual explanation of the origin of the Vestals be true or
not, the fact remains that the high priest surpassed in power, and even
inaugurated the rex;" and this fact requires explanation. The ancient
Romans knew that their rex sacrorum was a survival of the king in his
religious capacity. To account, then, for his meager authority even in
matters of worship, they said that, because of the tyranny of the Tar-
quins, the very name of king was hated and feared, and that therefore
the most important religious duties of the chief were given to the ponti-
fex maximus, in order that the power of the one bearing the royal title
might be as slight as possible.” But if these early Romans were capable
of abolishing or curtailing old offices and creating new ones in so violent
a fashion, it seems strange that they should have felt constrained to
retain their rex at all. If, on the other hand, belief in their religious
conservatism is to be upheld, a more reasonable explanation would
be that these offices were the result of a gradual growth. A clue to the
solution of the problem may be found by an inquiry into the nature of
the early kingship.
Reference has been made to the evidence collected by Professor
Frazer showing that the kings of many primitive nations, both of the
past and of the present, have been considered by their subjects to be the
incarnations of deities.” It seems likely that, at a similar stage of their
development, the Romans had kings of the same sort. This supposi-
tion is strengthened by the established fact that such kings existed near
*J. Chapt. VI.
* Fest. 106; Plut. Numa 9; Ov. F. 3, 419–428.
* Fest. 126; Liv. 2, 2; 40, 42, 8-9; Wissowa, 509 sqq.
” Dion. of Hal. 4, 73-74; 5, 1; Liv. 2, 1-2; Lyd. Magist. Reip. Rom. 1, 36; Plut.
Q. R. 63.
* Frazer Golden Bough, The Dying God; The Magic Art; Lectures on the Early
Hist, of the Kingship; see especially Magic Art, pt. 2, pp. 174 sqq.; J. p. 1-2.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 47
Rome. The strange priest-king at Nemi was, as Professor Frazer has
shown, a survival of such an incarnate ruler.”
Moreover the traditions current among the Romans about the
deification of Romulus" prove that the idea of a king-god was not
repugnant to them; and the ease with which the cult of the deified
emperors was established was due, not to the arrogance and the power
of these rulers themselves, but to the fact that the germ of this sort of
worship had always lain dormant in the hearts of the people, ready to
grow under favorable circumstances. It is a significant fact that both
Julius Caesar and Augustus were considered deities even during their
lifetime." Ideas of this kind could not have sprung up out of nothing
in a short time. They must have been a natural development of the
king-worship which had lain dormant for centuries in the religious con-
cepts of the people. From the time of Julius Caesar on, the worship
of the emperors was a regular part of the Roman religion. The deity
with whom the emperor was usually identified was Jupiter.”
The existence at Rome of a divine kingship is suggested also by
the Regifugium.” This was a ceremony occurring on the twenty-fourth
of February, when the rea: sacrorum performed a sacrifice in the Comitium
early in , the morning and immediately fled in haste. The Romans
seem to have thought that this speedy departure was emblematic of the
flight of the Tarquins from Rome. This is too obviously a theory made
up to fit the name. By the same sort of etymological reasoning, the
Poplifugium was said to commemorate the flight of the people after a
battle.* The true reason for the flight of the king must lie deeper in
* Valer. Flacc. Argon. 2, 300-305; Ov. Ars Am. 1, 259-260; F 3, 271-272; Pausan.
2, 27, 4; Serv. Aen. 6, 136; Stat. Silv. 3, 1, 55-56; Strabo 5, 3, 12; Suet. Calig. 35;
Frazer Golden Bough, The Magic Art, pp. 1-24; J. pp. 2 sqq.
1° S. Aug. C. D. 3, 15; Cic. Nat. Deor. 2, 24, 62; Rep. 2, 10, 17-18; Dion. of Hal.
2, 56; 2, 63; Flor. Epit. 1, 1, 18; Liv. 1, 16; Ov. F. 2, 491-512; Met. 14, 805-828; Plut.
Numa 2; Rom. 28, 29; Aur. Vict. Vir. Ill. 2.
* Appian. Bell. Civ. 2, 148; 3, 2; Dio Cass. 44, 5-7; 44, 51; 51, 19-20; Hor. Od.
1, 2, 41-52; Ov. Met. 15, 745–870; Serv. Aen. 1, 290; 1, 291; Suet. Aug. 94-100; Jul.
76; 88; Verg. Aen. 1, 289-290; (many other references might be added).
*J. pp. 51-54.
* Auson. Eclog. 385, 13–14; CIL. I, p. 387, Feb. 24, and Mommsen's note; Ov.
F. 2, 685-852; 5, 727-728; Fest. 278, 279; Plut. Q. R. 63; Serv. Aen. 8, 646; Fowler
Rom. Fest. pp. 327–331; Mommsen in CIL. I, p. 367, 1, 3.
* Macrob. 3, 2, 14; Varro L. L. 6, 18; See Fowler Rom. Fest. pp. 174 f.
48 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
the nature of religious sacrifices. Professor Robertson Smith, from
data too copious to be presented here, deduces the law that the victim
slain in honor of a god was always originally that deity himself.” If
this is true, the animal killed at the Regifugium represented some divin-
ity. But why did the rex himself flee so swiftly after the sacrifice? Was
it because it was a sacrilege to slay a god? If this were so, why did
not all priests run away after performing similar rites? Is it not really
much more probable that, although this victim, in accordance with
Professor Smith's law, was a deity, yet it was not from the consequences
of the sacrilegious slaughter that the priest-king fled; but that the
rex sacrorum, like the primitive kings already mentioned, was him-
self originally both the deity and the victim, “a god self-slain on his
own strange altar?” He, then, felt a particular necessity for flight,
if he would avoid an untimely death. Perhaps some crafty old king,
on perceiving that the time was come when he must pay for the privi-
leges enjoyed during his reign, repaired in secret to the place set for his
very literal self-sacrifice, slew a sheep and fled, leaving it on the altar
as a substitute for himself. It must have been comparatively easy to
persuade his superstitious subjects that the gods had accepted the
animal, or even that they had provided it themselves. Having once
found that no ill consequences followed the sacrifice of a beast instead
of a man, a people that was so far advanced in civilization as to be
averse to the slaughter of an innocent human being, would be likely to
continue the vicarious sacrifice. When once the reac had slain his vic-
tim and fled, he would always perform the act in the same way. And,
in more cultivated times, the rex sacrorum fled in imitation of that fear
which had inspired the flight of the primitive king.”
The next question to consider is: what god was incarnated in this
priest-king? In the examples given by Professor Frazer, the kings
who attained this unenviable god-head were always magicians who had
power especially over the weather.” The reason for slaying this king,
as has been shown in another connection,” was to keep his power un-
* Encyclop. Brit. article “Sacrifice.” -
* For other instances of flights in primitive rituals, see; Farnell Cults of the
Greek States, 1, pp. 88; Frazer Golden Bough 2, pp. 35 sqq.; Lobek Aglaophamus 676;
Mannhardt Myth. Forsch. pp. 58 sqq.; Robertson Smith Relig. of the Semites, pp. 286
SQQ.
17 Frazer Golden Bough, Chapters 1, 2 & 6; Lect, on the Early Hist. of the Kingship.
18 J. p. 2.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 49
harmed by advancing age, or, in time of scarcity, to influence the weather
and secure more abundant crops. Now, the Roman god of the sky and
of the rain was, of course, Jupiter.” Therefore it seems entirely prob-
able that the early king, the descendant of the rain-making magician,
was a human Jupiter. If so, this god Jupiter, conversely, had been an
earthly ruler who was etherialized into a real divinity, whereas the king,
who originally had been the god himself, became merely vice-regent on
earth. Perhaps some of the stories associated with the priestly Numa
may be reminiscences of the magical relation between him and the
weather god. One such tale is the following: The pious monarch,
by the recitation of a certain formula, brought Jupiter down from the
sky. He then inquired of the Thunderer what propitiatory offering
he desired when he hurled his bolts against mankind. “A head must
be cut off,” said the god; “Of an onion,” Numa agrees. “Of a man,”
the deity insists; “The topmost hairs,” retorts the king. Jupiter
repeats his demand, “A life must be sacrificed,” “Yes, of a fish,”
assents the ever-compliant Numa. Seeing the uselessness of con-
tinuing the argument with so clever a controversialist, Jupiter yielded,
and from that time on, the sacrifices suggested by Numa were made
for lightning.” Besides showing the magical relationship between
Numa and the god of thunder, this story incidentally gives another
example of a human sacrifice being changed to that of an animal, or
even a vegetable.” Furthermore, according to Plutarch, Numa insti-
tuted and took part in certain “sacrifices and dances,” in order to secure
the aid of the gods.” These ceremonies were probably magical prac-
tices, somewhat like the dances of the “medicine men” among the
American Indians.
King Latinus became Jupiter Latiaris after his death,” and Aeneas
was deified as Jupiter Indiges.” This enhances the probability that
these kings were Jupiters during their lifetime. To Jupiter Latiaris,
19 Carter Relig. of Numa, pp. 21 & 58; Cook, A. B. Zeus, pp. 10 Sqq.; pp. 41,
sqq.; Fowler Rom Fest. pp. 88 sqq.; 229 Sqq.; Frazer Golden Bough, The Magic Art 2,
pp. 174 sqq.; Wissowa Relig. u. Kult, pp. 113 Sqq.
20 Arnob. 5, 1-4; Ov. F. 3, 327–369; Plin. N. H. 2, 53, 140; Plut. Numa 15; Aur.
Vict. Vir. Ill. 4.
* Cf. Fest. 379, where the ver sacrum is mentioned.
22 Plut. Numa 8.
* Fest. 194; Frazer Golden Bough, 2, 187.
* Liv. 1, 2, 6; Ov. Met. 14, 581-608; Serv. Aen. 1, 259; cf. 4, 620.
50 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
moreover, human sacrifices were offered,” a circumstance suggesting
still further a connection between him and divine victims of primitive
times, such as the Rex Wemorensis. The many taboos” that had to be
observed by the rex sacrorum and by the flamen Dialis, appear by a
Comparison with such things among other primitve nations to be an
indication of divinity.” Their purpose seems to have been to protect
the godhead, because any injury coming to him would affect the whole
Country. Furthermore, a passage from Plautus” quoted and translated
by Professor Frazer,” shows that the idea of human Jupiters was suf-
ficiently familiar to the Romans to be used in a popular play. An old
man says to a slave, “I’ll be your Jupiter; and, so long as I am pro-
pitious, you need not care a straw for these lesser gods.” “That's all
nonsense,” retorts the slave, “as if you did not know how human Jupi-
ters die a sudden death. When you are a dead Jupiter, and your king-
dom has passed to others, who will there be to protect me?” This
may, of course, be borrowed from the Greeks, from whom Plautus drew
most of his material; but he would hardly have used it unless there had
been Something in Roman customs, or traditions, enough like it to
make it intelligible to his audience. It is entirely reasonable to suppose
that the reference is to a ceremony at some near place, such as Nemi,
or that it is a conception native to Rome. But even if the idea be an
imported one, it must be noticed that it is Jupiter, not some other deity,
who is chosen as the god who could die.
It is to be noted, too, that the title Rex is constantly bestowed on
Jupiter.” It is possible, to be sure, that this may be another case
of borrowing from the Greeks. The Romans may simply have identi-
fied their Jupiter with the Greek Zeus; but even if this were so, the fact
that he, rather than some other god, was chosen as the counterpart of
the Homeric “king of gods and men,” is some indication of his original
character of king. The consistency with which this title is bestowed
* Min. Felix 22, 6; 30, 4; Liv. 10, 38; Tert. Apol. 9.
* Fest. 81; 248-249; Gell. 10, 15; Plin. N. H. 18, 12, 30, 119; 28, 9, 40, 146; Plut.
Q. R. 40, 44; 50; 109-113.
* Frazer Golden Bough, Taboo, and the Perils of the Soul; Lect. on the Early Hist.
of the Kingship, Chapt. 2.
* Plaut. Casina 2, 5, 23-29 (330–337).
* Frazer Lect. on the Early Hist. of the Kingship, pp. 282-283.
*S. Aug. C. D. 4, 17; 4, 23; 7, 9; 7, 11; Hor. Od. 4, 4, 2; Verg. Aen. 1, 65; 2,
648; 5, 533; 10, 2.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 51
on Jupiter, quem unum omnium deorum et hominum regem esse omnes
doctrina expoliti consentiunt,” adds to its significance in the present
discussion. A line of Horace may be added to this,
reges in ipsos imperium est Iovis.”
Any other of the gods might equally well have been considered the ruler
over kings, were it not for the fact that Jupiter was himself rex. There
is, too, a constant association of Jupiter with kings. He it was who
ratified the election of Numa to the kingship.” An eagle, the bird of
Jove, foretold to Tarquinius Priscus that he should sit on a throne.”
And when a similar aquiline messenger of the gods swooped down and
carried off Lucumo's cap, he realized that a like honor was in store for
him.” It is true that Romulus, after his apotheosis, gained the name
Quirinus, not Jupiter, but at any rate, Jupiter had his share in the
deification of this first king of Rome, for he took him to heaven during
a thunderstorm.” Livy says that Jupiter, Romulus and the kings all
bore the same name.” This may indeed be only the title rex, never-
theless the statement connects the kings with Jupiter. Servius, revers-
ing the order, says that ancient kings often assumed the names of gods.”
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in explaining the reason for the establishing
of a rex sacrorum, says that he was appointed on the expulsion of the
kings because the name of the royal power came from the gods and
therefore could not be abolished.” Finally, it was Jupiter who was
constantly associated with the emperors.” Ovid sees the oak wreath
over the door of the house of Augustus, and wonders whether it be the
temple of Jupiter which he beholds; then, later on, he unblushingly
addresses that emperor as maxime dive.” Horace invokes Jupiter as
the guardian of Augustus and implies that the emperor is the vice-
* Cic. Rep. 1, 36, 56.
* Hor. Od. 3, 1, 6.
* Liv. 1, 18, 9-10.
34 Aur. Vict. Vir. Ill. 6.
* Liv. 1, 34, 8-9.
* Cf. Cook Class. Rev. 18, pp. 360 sqq.
* Liv. 3, 39, 4.
* Serv. Aen. 7, 180.
* Dion. of Hal. 4, 73-74.
* Dio Cass. 43, 14; 53, 16; Ov. F. 1, 612-614; Met. 1, 562; Suet. Aug. 94-100;
Calig. 19; 35; Jul. 76; Nero 10; Tib. 26; Tac. Ann. 2, 83.
* Ov. Trist. 3, 1, 35; 3, 1, 78.
52 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
regent of the god.” Before his death, Caesar dreamt that he was soaring
above the clouds and clasped hands with Jupiter.” Suetonius records,
also, that Octavius, father of Augustus, in a dream saw his son cum
fulmine et sceptro exuviisque Iovis.” The same author gives other dreams,
too, connecting Augustus with Jupiter.” In coins commemorating the
consecratio of emperors an eagle is often represented bearing the soul
aloft.* Domitian was often called Jupiter,” while Caligula appro-
priately assumed the title of Jupiter Latiaris.” Augustus and Tiberius
were represented on cameos as Jupiter,” and similar portraits of other
emperors are to be seen.”
One other very important consideration is that not only the flamen
Dialis, the acknowledged priest of Jupiter, but also the rex sacrorum,
together with consuls and generals, and later on, emperors, possessed
insignia which had belonged to the ancient king. These things per-
tained to the gods also, especially to Jupiter. Among these were the
trabea, the curule chair and the fasces. In Dionysius of Halicarnassus 4,74,
is the express statement that consuls were allowed to keep the regalia
of kings, especially for festal days. On the day of his inauguration,
the consul rode to the Capitol in a chariot, drawn by white horses, the
insignia of Jove. Furthermore, the horses were sacrificed to Jupiter.”
The horses and chariot, also, as well as a gilded sceptre, crown and
eagle added glory to generals in their triumphs.” The toga picta which
the triumphant general wore was prečminently the property of the
Capitoline Jove. It may even have been kept in the temple, for Lam-
pridius states that Alexander Severus never wore it, except as consul,
and then it was the same one that other consuls wore, de Iovis templo
* Hor. Od. 1, 12, 49-60.
* Suet. Jul. 81.
* Suet. Aug. 94.
* Suet. Aug. 94.
* Isid. 18, 2, 5; Platner Top. Rom., p. 379; Stevenson Dict. of Coins, s. v. con-
secratio; cf. Suet. Aug. 97.
*7 Mart. 4, 1; 4, 3; 4, 8, 12; 6, 10; 9,86; Stat. Silv. 1, 6, 25-26. Cf. Suet. Dom.
4; 13.
* Suet. Calig. 28.
* Baum. Denk. 3, pp. 1708-1710.
* Overbeck Kunstmyth. Zeus pp. 203 sqq.; Furtwängler Ant. Gemmen pl. 65, 48.
*J. pp. 13 Sqq.
* Appian. 8, 66; Dio Cass. 44, 4–7; Dion. of Hal. 4,74; Paulus-Fest. 209; Joseph.
Bell. Iud. 7, 5, 3–6; Minuc. Felix. 22, 6; Liv. 1, 1, 8, 2-3; Plut. Camill. 7, 1; Q. R.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 53
sumptam.” Livy expressly states that generals, when celebrating a tri-
umph, were decorated with the insignia of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.”
Lydus, moreover, specifies Caesar and Augustus as riding into the
city as gods.” Isidorus gives another striking feature of the triumph:
that the generals smeared their faces with a red color, quasi imitarentur
divini ignis effigiem.” Now Pliny gives the information that the face
of the statue of Jupiter and also the bodies of those who were triumphing
were painted red.” It seems clear, then, that the generals were imi-
tating not “divine fire,” but the gods themselves. The crown which
was offered to Caesar, he sent to the Capitoline Jove, with the statement
that he alone was king,” thereby showing that he considered one who
wore a crown as assuming the rôle of Jupiter. But, even though he
could not take the title rex, Caesar nevertheless could, and did, receive
divine honors. He had a priest, statues, a chariot, etc., all of which
were emblems of godhead.” Politically, the Romans would not ac-
knowledge a king, but they had no objections apparently, to considering
their rulers gods.
From the foregoing examples it has been shown that early kings
had the attributes of Jupiter, that later, consuls, generals, priests, and
emperors had the same insignia. If, then, the rex sacrorum, the flamen
Dialis, consuls, generals, and emperors severally performed duties all
of which once belonged to an actual king, their regalia and privileges
must have pertained to the individual whose powers they had assumed
and divided among themselves. If these emblems were once the dis-
tinguishing marks of a deity, then the king, who had formerly borne
them all, must have been the mortal representation of the god whose
attributes he had.
113; Serv. Aen. 7, 612; 12, 206; Suet. Nero. 4, 25; Tacit. Ann. 4, 26; Verg. Aen. 7,
612; 12, 206; Zonaras 7, 21; cf. J. Chapt. VIII, note 12; for a discussion of triumphs
and references see Frazer Golden Bough, Magic Art, pt. 2, pp. 174 sq.
* Lamprid. Alex. Sever. 40.
*Liv. 5, 23; 10, 7; see also Jul. Cap. Gord. 4, 4; Juv. 10, 38; Mayor on Juv. 10,
36; 10, 38.
*Lyd. Magist. Reip. Rom. 2, 2; 2, 3; cf. Mart. 7, 8, 2.
* Isid. 18, 2, 6; Serv. Ecl. 10, 27, states the same fact.
*7 Plin. N. H. 33, 7, 36, 111.
* Dio Cass. 44, 11; Suet. Jul. 79.
* Suet. Jul. 76; J. p. 47.
54 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
If, then, the ancient king had been the representative of Jupiter on
earth, of course the rea: sacrorum, the survival of the actual king, must
have been a priest of Jupiter, not of Janus, as has been generally sup-
posed.
But if this be true, Jupiter had two priests. And, indeed, the facts
that are known, as well as the traditions that have been handed down,
about the establishment of the body of priests at Rome, would lead
to the belief that this was the fact. The Romans thought that Numa
instituted the three great flamines and the pontifex maximus.” It is
worth noting that it is said that he reserved for himself certain important
duties, “especially those that pertain to the flamen Dialis.” That is
to say, the rites which in later times were performed by the priest of
Jupiter, were the very ones that Numa did not resign, a circumstance
that forms another link connecting the king to Jupiter. But, as Livy
goes on to say, Numa nevertheless appointed a priest to Jupiter, because
he felt that many of his royal Successors, being more interested in war
than in religion, would neglect the priesthood; while the appointment of
a regular priest would make the continuance of the rites certain. The
flamen Dialis, then, stood in the same relation to Jupiter that the flamen
Martialis did to Mars, and the flamen Quirinalis to Quirinus, except
for the fact that the deities whom the flamines of Mars and of Quirinus
served were more or less distant divinities, whereas the god of the
flamen Dialis was partly conceived of as an etherial being, partly as
incarnated in the earthly king.
The religious organization, then, during the regal period, after
Numa had established his priesthoods, may be Classified as follows:
the king, who discharged those duties which especially concerned royal-
ty; a pontifex maximus, who was the head of the hierarchy;” and three
great flamines, who looked after the rites pertaining to their respective
deities (consideration of the lesser flamines is not necessary to the
present discussion). The appointment of the pontifex maximus and
his subordinates was the beginning of the separation of religion and
state. But, from the very nature of the royal office, this divorce could
•0 Cic. Rep. 2, 14, 26; Florus Epit. 1, 2; Lactant. Instit. 1, 22,4; Liv. 1, 20; 4, 4, 1;
Plut. Numa 7; 9; Varro L. L. 7, 45; Aur. Vict. Vir. Ill. 3.
61 Liv. 1, 20.
62 Paulus-Fest. 126.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 55
not be complete. Therefore Numa, whose name doubtless stands for
a long line of rulers who established these customs gradually, is said
to have reserved for himself some important ceremonies. These would
be such as were inseparable from, or preliminary to, some secular affairs
which he could not afford to let slip from his hands; or they would be
those which, because of their nature, required a king for their perfor-
mance. Now, when the king expected to be away, at war, for instance,
or was for any reason unwilling to burden himself with even the duties
which he had reserved for his own supervision, he could, without in
any way losing his control over these rites, appoint a substitute to
perform them in his stead. That this was customary is shown by the
Acta Arvalium, where there is given an instance of a person officiating
at the regular sacrifice in the place of the usual priest.” From an old
formula of Cato's it is clear that such substitutes often performed rites
even for private individuals.” It is certain that a war-loving king
would often avail himself of this privilege. And, indeed, in Livy 1, 33,
an actual instance is given, Ancus demandata cura sacrorum flaminibus
sacerdotibusque aliis exercitu novo conscripto profectus, Politorium,
urbem Latinorum vi cepit. The proxy of a king would be temporarily
a priest-king, a rex sacrorum.
Since the pontifex maximus was the head of the state religion, he
was naturally the one to remind the king when the time came for the
performing of the royal ceremonies; and, in case the king did not wish
to officiate, he might also suggest a suitable proxy, or appoint one
himself. Consequently, when the Republic was set up, the pontifex
maximus may have been a man of considerable power, which was lodged
in his own person, whereas the rex sacrorum was only the shadow of a
king, a mere proxy. The fact that the office of pontifex maximus was
so desirable as to be the object of keen contests, and to be held, in
imperial times, by the emperor himself, whereas that of rex was never
an object of contention,” reinforces this supposition. Although con-
jectural, this is more reasonable than the theory, based on the traditions
of the Romans themselves, that, at the establishment of the Republic,
the people from fear and hatred of the name of king, gave most of the
religious duties to a pontifex maximus created for that purpose. Feel-
* CIL. VI, 2066, lines 2-3.
64 Cato R. R. 139.
* Liv. 25, 5, 2; 27, 8, 4–5; 8-9; Dio Cas. 54, 27; Dion. of Hal. 4, 74; 5, 1.
56 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
ing, however, that they ought to have a religious king, they created the
rex sacrorum, but they made his power very small, in order to discourage
any attempt on his part to gain a real kingship. If this had been the
motive of these early republicans, they might just as easily have abol-
ished the kingship entirely and given all the religious duties of the ruler
to the pontifex maximus or to some other. It is more reasonable to think
that the title of rex sacrorum did not inspire fear or hatred, because the
people had long been familiar with it as belonging to a person who
could do no harm; that the offices of pontifex maximus and of rex sacro-
rum were not established at the expulsion of the kings; but that they were
the result of a slow growth; that, at the establishment of the Republic
the Romans found the religious and secular power of the state already
lodged, to a certain extent, in different persons; and that, in accordance
with their well-known conservatism, especially in religious matters,
they left the religious hierarchy as it was, and simply gave the secular
power of the king to the two consuls. Even this last step was no very vio-
lent revolution, since they were entirely familiar with the idea of elec-
tion of kings.”
These conjectures lend reasonableness to the contradictory state of
affairs found in the existence of:
1. A pontifex maximus, who is the head of the religious organiza-
tion of the state, and who is, however, not in any way the successor of
the ancient king;
2. A rex sacrorum, who nominally ranks first of all the priests, who
seems to be the survival of the primitive king, and yet is subordinate
to the pontifex maximus, and appointed by him;
3. Vestal virgins, who are the survival of the king's daughters,
but are nevertheless officially the daughters of the pontifex maximus,
not of the rex sacrorum;
4. Royal titles, insignia, etc., which are borne by the gods, the rex
sacrorum, the pontifex maximus, priests of Jupiter, consuls and generals,
and emperors.
So far evidence has been produced showing that the reac sacrorum
was a priest of Jupiter; it remains to bring forward the negative evi-
dence by showing that he did not belong to Janus. This priest has been
assigned to Janus because such an arrangement fits in so well with the
* Cic. Rep. 2, 17, 31; 2, 20, 35; 2, 21, 37; Liv. 1, 18; cf. Sall. Bell. Cat. 6, 6–7.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 57
evident parallelism between household and state worship,” and because
it has been thought to be corroborated by two passages, one in Ovid,
and one in the Acta Arvalium. In Fasti I, 318, Ovid says of the
agonalia of January 9:
Ianus agonali luce piandus erit.
In the following lines he adds that the rex sacrorum sacrificed a ram on
that day. In the Acta Arvalium” a ram is mentioned as the offering
to Janus. From these two passages it has been assumed” that the rez
was a priest of Janus, and that he offered a ram to Janus on the first
Agonalia of the year. Laurentius Lydus, an authority usually over-
looked in this connection, and with reason, since he was a late Greek
writer showing little knowledge of Roman affairs, says that this agonalia
was a festival of the air. He then goes on to say that Janus is the air.”
Evidently he, at least, thought that the day was sacred to Janus, prob-
ably basing his belief on the fact that it fell in the month of January.
Besides, by the sixth century, when Lydus lived, the mythology of the
Greeks and Romans had become so impregnated with Oriental mysti-
cism that its original character was obscured; and Janus, accordingly,
had become a cosmic deity, identified with Jupiter.” Moreover, Lydus
adds no further information about the nature of the ceremonies, but,
by an excursus into Callimachus, attempts to explain the etymology
of the word Ianus. His philosophizing, therefore, is worth nothing as
evidence of the identity of the god of this agonalia. In Ovid's time,
on the contrary, the rite was still being performed; and, under the
encouragement of Augustus, every effort was being made to preserve
the ancient ritual in its purity. What Ovid says about the ceremony is
consequently worthy of some degree of respect. After making many
conjectures about the etymology and meaning of the word agonium,
* Chapter VI, and the beginning of Chapter VII.
* CIL. VI, 2099, p. 559, line 24, and p. 561, line 9; 2104, p. 569, line 2; 2107, p.
575, line 8.
* Fowler Rom. Fest. p. 282 (Fowler, however, admits the doubt, cf. p. 288);
Mommsen CIL. I, p. 375; p. 383, Jan. 9; Pauly Real-Encycl. vol. I, s.v. agonium;
Wissowa de Feriis Anni Rom. p. XII; Relig. u. Kult. pp. 21; 103; Bailey Relig. of Anc.
Rome, 77.
79 Lyd. Mens. 4, 2.
"Cf. with Lydus, Proclus Hymn to Hecate and Janus.
58 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
and in these guesses he displays the same sort of pedantic ignorance
as the other etymologists, Ovid says:
& Cº º º gº Ita rex placare Sacrorum
numina lanigerae coniuge debet ovis.”
Varro, also, states that the rex sacrificed a ram on the agonalia, but
does not name the divinity honored.” The word numina in the pas-
Sage from Ovid may mean that more than one god was invoked. It may,
however, be no more than an instance of the common use of the plural
for the singular. This one word, therefore, cannot be taken as proof
that Janus was not the god of the ceremony. But it is well known that
Janus held the first place in the list of gods, and was regularly invoked
in prayer before the other gods. When a complete list was given,
Vesta held the last place.” This was so common that “Janus and
Vesta” came to be a collective name for the body of deities to whom
prayer was usually offered; as, for example, Juvenal says:
et farre et vino Ianum Vestamgue rogabat.”
Even when the sacrifice was not to be made to the whole company of
great gods, including Janus, but to some one divinity, a preliminary
offering was generally given to Janus, as is attested by many formulas,”
and by these lines of Ovid:
tº tº e º 'º Cur quamvis aliorum numina placem,
Iane, tibi primum tura merumque fero?”
Macrobius, also, states the same fact: invocarique primum, cum alicui
deo res divina celebratur.” In view of this fact, it seems most probable
that the Ianus piandus simply means, “a sacrifice must be made.”
7? Ov. F. 1, 333-334.
7° Varro L. L. 6, 12.
7. J. Chapt. II.
75 Juv. 6, 386.
*J. Chapt. II.
77 Ov. F. 1, 171-172. In Ov. F. 3, 881-882, almost the same expression is used:
Ianus adorandus cumque hoc Concordia mitis
et Romana Salus araque Pacis erit.
Peter takes this festival to include Janus. There is nothing, however, in the refer-
ences to the Altar of Peace on which to base the supposition that Janus had anything
to do with it. The Calendars do not mention him with the dedication of the altar,
CIL. I, pp. 313; 385, Jan. 29 and 30; Dio Cass. 54, 25; Mon. Ancyr. 12, 37-41; Platner,
pp. 361-362; cf. J. p. 9.)
78 Macrob 1, 9, 9.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 59
To be sure, Ovid does not disclose the identity of the deity to whom
a sacrifice is made on this agonalia. It is possible, therefore, either
that the ancient god had been forgotten, while his festival survived,
as was the case in the Lupercalia, or that the offering was made to the
great gods collectively. At any rate, there is no reason for thinking
that Janus was the god honored, or that the reac sacrorum was his priest.
Since the rea, was a priest of Jupiter, there is a bare possibility that this
sacrifice at which he officiated was held in honor of that god. If this had
been the case, however, it seems probable that Ovid would have men-
tioned the fact, as he does when describing the ceremonies of the Ides.”
Since no particular deity is mentioned for January 9, it seems more
likely that the day was celebrated in honor of the great divinities of the
state. And the rex because of his position of priest of Jupiter, would
not have been debarred from performing a sacrifice to the other gods of
the community. The ancient king, being head of the state religion,
would certainly worship all the deities of the commonwealth. The
rex sacrorum, his successor, would do the same.
The calendars give no mark except AGON for January 9,” but, beside
the three other days thus marked, there are noted some festivals: on
March 17, the festival in honor of Liber,” on May 21, that in honor of
Veiovis,” and on December 11, the Septimontium.” Whether or not
the other festivals marked in the calendars as falling on the days of the
agonalia had any connection with the word agonium or with each other,
is not clear. From the connection of the priest of Jupiter with the
first one, it might be assumed that all the days referred to the same god,
and perhaps celebrated different phases of his activity. The whole
matter is, however, extremely doubtful.”
All the evidence so far cited has gone to prove that the rex sacrorum
was a priest of Jupiter, not of Janus. There exists the difficulty that,
if this servitor is taken away from Janus, the great god of entrances ---
is left entirely bereft of priest or flamen. Modern authors seem to have
7° Ov. F. 1, 587 sqq.
* CIL. I, p. 383, Jan. 9.
* CIL. I, p. 388; Varro L. L. 6, 14.
* CIL., I, p. 394.
* CIL. I, p. 407; Paulus-Fest. 340.
* Fowler Rom. Fest. p. 281. Other references to the agonium: Paulus-Fest. 10;
Lyd. Mens. 3, 25; Ov. F. 5, 721-722 (this is simply a cross-reference to the first book,
60 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
assigned the rex sacrorum to Janus partly from a desire to see the impor-
tant office filled. However, Janus is not the only deity of recognized
dignity who is thus destitute. There are several gods who lack flamines,
among them Consus, a divinity of some rank in the state ritual.”
There remain to be discussed the few facts that are known about
the rex sacrorum, and to show that they are not inconsistent with the
theory that he was an incarnate priest of Jupiter. He was the first
in the ordo sacerdotum. Consequently, at the banquets of the priests,
he sat at the head of the table. This was not because he was a priest
of Janus, who came first in the list of gods, but because he was originally
the head of the whole state religion. Next to him came the flamen
Dialis.” This sequence, again, was due not to the Superiority of Janus
over Jupiter, but to the predominance of the incarnate Jupiter-king
over his own priest.
The rex sacrorum held office for life.” This may have been because
the ancient king had reigned as long as he lived. His person was invio-
lable.” His wife was called the regina sacrorum.” He could hold no
other office.” This was not due to fear that he might increase his
power, but to the very nature of his priesthood. For, as has been said,
the early kings found the taboos and religious duties of their office too
burdensome. They appointed therefore “kings of sacred things”
to assist in bearing the burden of royalty. Certainly, then, the office
would not be given to a man who had duties of his own. Plutarch gives
the interesting information that the rex was not allowed to make a
speech in any public place.” This seems to emphasize his position as
a mere proxy, who could do nothing on his own initiative.
On the first day of the month the rex sacrificulus, as the rex sacrorum
is sometimes called, summoned the people to the Curia Calabra, on the
where the question is treated more fully; it does not mean that the festival is con-
cerned with Janus. Janum simply means January); Varro L. L. 6, 12 sq.
* Wissowa Relig. u. Kult. pp. 20-21.
* Fest. 185; Gell. 10, 15, 21.
87 Dion. of Hal. 4, 74.
* Serv. Aen. 8, 646.
89 CIL. VI, 2123; 2124; Macrob. 1, 15, 19.
90 Dion. of Hal. 4, 74; 5, 1; Plut. Q. R. 63.
* Plut. Q. R. 63.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 61
Capitoline, and, after performing a sacrifice, announced to them on
which day the Nones of that month would fall. Meantime his wife, the
regina sacrorum, sacrificed in the Regia. On the Nones, the rex again
assembled the people and gave them information about the festivals
for the month.” This assembling of the people was a duty which the
early king would naturally not relegate to another, although he gave
up most of the purely religious rites to different priests. But, since the
right to hold an assembly was bound up with his secular power, he
would realize that to part with it was unsafe. But for the king's proxy
to hold the assembly would be perfectly safe, for that was exactly the
same as if the king had done it in person. Then, as the assembly
gradually lost its political importance, it would be most natural for
the king to leave it more and more in the hands of the proxy, especially
when the occasion was a religious one, recurring with irksome frequency,
This may explain why the rex sacrorum convened the popular assembly.
At the establishment of the Republic, since this convoking of the people
had come to be looked upon as one of his regular duties, it remained
under his jurisdiction. These interpretations of the various duties of
the rex sacrorum are, of course, merely conjectural; but they seem rea-
sonable. The growing unimportance of the old assembly, over which
the king presided, can be seen from the fact that in historical times,
it was called but twice a year, to legalize wills and adoptions. The
days on which it convened are marked on the calendars Q. R. C. F. In
a note in Paulus-Festus, there seems to be a confusion between these
days and that of the Regifugium.” The note in the Praenestine Calen-
dar, however, seems to be correct, in which it is stated that the days
were so marked because after the assembly had been held, business
might be resumed,” and Varro states that Q. R. C. F. means quando rex
comitiavit; fas.”
There is a reference in Paulus-Festus to regiae feriae. This festival
may have been performed by the king in early times and by the rex
sacrorum in later times, if the name can be taken to mean anything.
Unfortunately the ceremony is not referred to anywhere, at least by
*Macrob. 1, 15, 9-12; 1, 15, 19; Serv. Aen. 8, 654; Varro L. L. 6, 27-28.
** Fest. 258; 278.
* CIL. I, p. 315.
* Varro L. L. 6, 31; see also CIL. I, pp. 301; 315; 367 and Mommsen's note;
Fowler Rom. Fest. pp. 63 sqq.
62 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
this name, except in the very imperfect passage in Festus; Regiae Feriae
dictae videntur, quae fiunt fori, Comitiique lustrandi Causa . . . . . -
fulguris fit . . . . . ubi quo regiae feriae.” These words seem to
refer to some kind of piacular offering for lightning; if so, the fact that
the rex presided is another link connecting him and Jupiter, the thun-
derer.
As has been mentioned before, the Regia was the survival of the
residence of the early kings.” Therefore it would be natural to suppose
that the rex sacrorum lived in it. But it is not certain whether it was
the residence of the reac or of the pontifex or of both.” If it was the
home of one of these exclusively, the other may have had an office in
it. At any rate, the rex sacrorum and his wife performed sacrifices
there.” Possibly the custom changed at different times, and possibly
too, when the Forum ceased to be a desirable place in which to live,
both these dignitaries moved to a more pleasant neighborhood, merely
keeping offices in the Regia.
None of the data here given about the duties and privileges of the
rex sacrorum are inconsistent with the theory that he was a priest of
Jupiter. Moreover, there is very little to connect this shadow of royalty
with the simplicity of Janus, who had very little to do with kings.
96 Fest. 278.
27 J. p. 45.
*Dio Cass. 54, 27; Paulus-Fest. 279; 290 (these passages appear to contradict
each other); Serv. Aen. 8, 363; Fowler Rom. Fest. pp. 282; 335; Huelsen Rom. For.,
Carter's trans. pp. 180 sqq.; Platner pp. 210 Sqq.; Richter Topogr. der Stadt Rom,
pp. 91-92.
99 Paulus-Fest. 278.
CHAPTER VIII
RELATION OF JANUs To OTHER DEITIES
Jupiter
Much of the difficulty about the overlapping functions of deities
arises from a misconception of the origin and character of divinity. No
deity was patron of only one thing; as, for instance, Apollo was not
god of the Sun and of nothing else, nor Diana of the moon only. Deities
may have originated as specialists, but they could not long remain so.
If, for instance, one man prayed to his spear for protection, another
might supplicate his door, and immediately there would ensue a con-
fusion of the functions of the two numina. So Mars, the field god,
became a war god. So did Jupiter, the sky god.
But the confusion between Jupiter and Janus is greatest of all, for sº
both seem to be supreme. It is these irreconcilable claims that led to
the theory that the two were identical." Not only modern scholars,
but the ancients, also, were disturbed by this similarity in the char-
acteristics of Jupiter and Janus. St. Augustine asks: Cum ergo et
Ianus mundus sit, et Iupiter mundus sit, unusque sit mundus, quare
duo dii sint, Ianus et Iupiter?” He quotes Varro for a kind of explana-
tion: quoniam penes Ianum Sunt prima, penes Iovem summa. But, as
is shown throughout this paper, Janus did not originally occupy so
lofty a position as that assigned him by Augustine; he was a lowly
doorkeeper. Neither was Jupiter so noble a conception; he was an
earthly king. It was only after a long period, when the Romans had
become acquainted with the philosophic ideas of the Greeks, that they
gave to their gods the sublime character of world deities.
The following inscription has been taken as evidence that Janus
and Jupiter were identical:
I O W I
D I A N O
C - H E R R E
* Cook Class. Rev. 18, p. 368; Frazer Lect. on Kingship, pp. 285 sqq.; Golden Bough,
Magic Art, pt. 2, pp. 381 Sqq.; Linde de Iano summo Rom, deo.
* Aug. C. D. 7, 10; cf. 4, 11; 7, 9; 7, 11.
64 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
N. N I V S (Sic)
C A N D I D V S
V . S . L . M. .”
This has been supposed (thus Orelli-Henzen no. 5622) to be dedicated
to a single deity, Jupiter Janus. It may just as well be taen to mean,
“to Jupiter and to Janus.” Many other inscriptions can be found in
which the names of divinities are combined without punctuation or
conjunction. One such is the following:
I O V I O P T I M O
M A X I M O I U N O
N I R E G I N A E M I N
E R V A E S A N C T A E
S O L I M I T H R A E . . . . . etc.4
The first inscription is, moreover, very poorly cut, as can be seen from
the copy. Surely it is useless as evidence about the name of the god,
when even the name of the man who set it up is incorrectly written.
But St. Augustine unconsciously adds to the passage quoted above,
the test by which it can be determined whether or not the two
divinities were the same: Seorsus habent templa, Seorsus aras, diversa.
sacra. If two divinities differ in place of worship, in cult, in origin and
in name, a few similar functions, or qualities, will not make them iden-
tical.
Even in the literary period of Rome's history, there was little in
common between Jupiter Optimus Maximus, with his triumphal robes
and crowns and pomp of Sacrifice, and Janus, whose name came at the
beginning of every prayer, to be sure, but for whose worship a few cakes,
or, at most, a ram sufficed. Both were elevated by the concepts of
philosophers into world deities. But it is to be noted that other deities,
also, share in this elevating process. To quote St. Augustine again:
Ipse in aethere sit Iupiter, ipse in aere Iuno, ipse in mari Neptunus,
in Iano initiator . . . . . etc.” Having begun, then, in entirely dif-
ferent strata of religious conceptions, Janus and Jupiter arrived, finally
at the same goal.
* CIL. 5, 783.
* CIL. 8, 4578.
* S. Aug. C. D. 4, 11.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 65
Saturn
Saturn was an ancient god of agriculture. It is natural, therefore,
that he should have some characteristics in common with the weather
god, Jupiter. One strange rite resembling some of the ceremonies of
Jupiter is recorded by Professor Frazer." The Roman soldiers on the
Danube in their celebration of the Saturnalia, slew a youth who was
dressed to impersonate the god Saturn. Arguing from the resemblance
of this ceremony to the cult of the human Jupiter, Professor Frazer
comes to the conclusion that Jupiter, Janus and Saturn were different
forms of the same deity. It is possible, as Professor Frazer says, that
the worship of a human Jupiter may have been brought in by a con-
quering people and may have supplanted that of a human Saturn. In
this way the two gods may have become blended. But, if the reiterated
rule that difference in cult marks difference in deity is to be upheld,
then the two are distinct divinities.
Mention has been made of the myths concerning Janus and Saturn."
In these stories Janus comes to Italy, bringing new ideas of civilization,
or, he hospitably receives Saturn, from whom he obtains knowledge of
the new arts of life. He is called the son of Hecate and of the sky,”
and is sometimes given a sister Camise, a son Aether, and a daughter
Olisthene.” He is the founder of the Janiculum, as Saturn is of Satur-
nia.” These stories all seem to be concerned with the very early impor-
tation of merchandise and of certain new ideas of civilization. These
the Romans seem to have received from the Greeks, along with an
anthropomorphic form of Hermes, whom they identified with their
Janus.
Juno
The title Junonius would seem to indicate some connection between
Janus and Juno. Macrobius argues from it that the Kalends were
* Frazer Lectures on the Early Hist. of the Kingship, Chapt. 9. (In Herodian 1,
16, is the statement that the Saturnalia was celebrated in honor of Janus, which might
be taken as additional evidence for Professor Frazer's theory. This is clearly, how-
ever, a confusion on the part of the historian, for he goes on to say, as a reason for the
celebration, that Janus received Saturn during his exile.)
7.J. Chap. V.
* Arnob. 3, 29.
* Athen. 15, 46.
* Arnob. 1, 36; 3, 29; Isid. 15, 1,50; Macrob. 1, 7, 23; Serv. Aen. 8, 357.
66 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
Sacred to Janus as well as to Juno.” That this is erroneous has been
shown.” Servius thought that, because Juno had at one time opened
the gates of Janus Geminus, Janus received a name from her.” But
the story told in Vergil is, of course, not the origin of the epithet.*
The meaning of the title seemingly derived from the name of Juno is,
however, obscure. In one case only, do the two deities seem to be
Connected in cult. This is at the Tigillum Sororum. This Tigillum
was a beam across a street, or alley, which led from the Carinae to the
Cyprium Angiportum. It was supported by the walls of the houses
on each side of the street.” The story told of it is that during the war
with the Albans, there was a battle between the Horatii and the
Curiatii. One of the Horatii killed one of the Curiatii, to whom his
sister was betrothed. Returning home with the spoils, he met his sister
and attempted to kiss her. But she, recognizing the cloak of her
lover, warded off the kiss, and turned aside and wept. Her brother then
in his anger killed her. Being condemned to death, he appealed to the
people and was acquitted. To expiate his crime, however, he, or his
father for him, erected a yoke, under which the youth was made to
pass. Beneath the yoke were put two altars, one to Janus Curiatius,
the other to Juno Sororia.” For this reason, the beam was called
Tigillum Sororum. The beam was held in veneration for a long period.
Sacrifices were performed at it annually.” It is recorded that the
Arval Brothers made an offering there even as late as the fourth cen-
tury A. D.” But the real meaning of the Tigillum and of the story con-
nected with it, is not at all certain. Roscher suggested that it was a relic
of a very old spell of creeping under wood to get rid of witchcraft.” Dr.
L. D. Barnett's theory that it was a fetish carries out this idea a little
farther.” The conjunction of an altar to Juno and one to Janus seems
* Macrob. 1, 9, 16.
*J. p. 17 sqq. -
* Serv. Aen. 7, 610; J. pp. 17-18.
* Verg. Aen. 7, 620–621.
* Dion. of Hal. 3, 22; Cook, Class. Rev. 18, p. 369; Platner pp. 258; 450.
* S. Aug. C. D. 3, 14; Dion. of Hal. 3, 15, 22; Paulus-Fest. 297; 307; Liv. 1,24-26;
cf. Lyd. Mens. 4, 1; Platner Top. Rom, pp. 258; 450.
” Dion. of Hal. 3, 15, 22.
* CIL. I, p. 402, Oct. 1.
* Roscher Lea. s.v.
* Class. Rev. 12, p. 463.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 67
to show a connection between the two deities. But their relationship
here is not clear. However, whatever other association there was
between them, it is at least certain that both were concerned with
childbirth, for Juno was the protectress of women at childbirth, and
Janus was the man's special deity, a god of generation. It is pos-
sible that the epithet Junonius refers to this function. The Janus
of men, however, does not correspond to the Juno of women, for the
numen of a man was a spirit with a definite name, his Genius; woman’s
numen was Juno, who, however, was not limited to the one function
as was the numen Genius. -
Diana
The name of Diana still more closely resembles that of Janus.
Another form Iana occurs;” and, conversely, of Janus there exists a
form Dianus.” Whatever etymology is accepted for these words it
makes no difference in determining the character of the deities. If the
form Ianus is the original one, and if this is derived from an extension
of the root of eo, “to go”,” it is, of course appropriate to the door-god,
and also to the birth-goddess, who is always associated with the phases
of the wandering moon. On the other hand, a derivation from the root
diu, considered as the foundation of the form Dianus,” will suit the
character of the deity equally well. Almost any god can be considered
“shining” or “godlike.” The adjective is especially suited to Janus,
since he was the opening at the door-way, through which came all the
light into the primitive Italic house. If the theory is accepted that
the same root appears in Janus, Jupiter, Juno, Dione, etc., it follows,
not that these deities were identical” but that the same general quality
was assumed in all of them. To attempt a solution of this vexed prob-
lem in etymology, however, is not the purpose of this paper, especially
since, as has been shown, none of the derivations advanced by different
scholars interferes with the theory herein presented. This Diana, - .
whose name seems to be the feminine form of Janus, was, according to
* Cf. Carter, Religious Life of Ancient Rome, p. 11.
* Varro R. R. 1, 37, 3; Macrob. 1, 9, 8.
* CIL. V., 783.
* Cic. N. D. 2, 27, 67; Macrob. 1, 9, 11; Serv. Aen. 7, 610; Walde s.v.
* CIL. V., 783. z
* Frazer Lect. on the Early History of the Kingship, pp. 285 sqq.
68 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
Professor Carter,” the Diana of Aricia who had been a close neighbor
of that incarnate king, the Rex Nemorensis.” Many votive offerings
found at her sanctuary prove that she was a goddess of birth, as well
as of the woods. Professor Carter thinks, also, that she came to Rome
when Aricia became head of the Latin League, and that her temple on
the Aventine was of importance, not to the Roman people, but only to
the League, since her office at Rome was already filled by Juno Lucina.
Perhaps some of Diana's later popularity was due to an identification
with the Greek Artemis. At any rate, she was certainly an important
goddess of birth, and side by side with her, Juno retained her position
unimpaired. This is still another example of the overlapping of the
functions” of deities.
Mater Matuta
Once in literature Ianus is called Matutine Pater, a title which
might be interpreted as connecting him with Mater Matuta, and as so
making him the god of dawn.” But, as has been argued before, the
adjective matutinus is used elsewhere with no more meaning than “in
the morning”; and it is entirely in the spirit of the passage in which
it occurs, to take the epithet to signify humorously, “early rising Janus,”
of, “father of early risers.” If this be true, the title does not prove
any religious connection between Janus and the dawn, or between him
and Mater Matuta, beyond the fact that both had some association
with birth. There is, to be sure, an inscription to Janus Pater and
Mater Matuta.” But this does not argue any great connection between
them. Often divinities that have little association in cult are honored
by inscriptions on the same stone.
Ops Consiva
Still another tie connecting Janus with the long list of birth-gods,
is the fact that as Janus Consivius,” he has the same title as Ops, who
* Carter Relig. of Numa, pp. 53 Sqq.
*J. Chapt. VII.
29 Hor. Carm. Saec.
* Hor. Sat. 2, 6, 20-23; Bailey Relig. of Anc. Rome, p. 77; Wissowa, p. 109.
*J., pp. 20-21.
* CIL. VIII, S. 11797; cf. Wissowa Relig. u. Kult., p. 110.
*Lyd. Mens. 4, 1; Macrob. 1, 9, 15; Tert. Nat. 2, 11.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 69
is sometimes called Opeconsiva.” She seems to have been a goddess
of fertility in general, both of the fields, and of the animal world.
Carna
There is a remarkable absence of myths concerning Janus. This
is probably due to the fact that this deity had no Greek counterpart,
whose exploits could be attributed to him. St. Augustine makes this
scarcity of legend the subject of a very good pun: An forte voluerunt
ut, quoniam plurimi dii selecti erubescenda perpetrando amiserant
frontem, quanto iste innocentior esset, tanto frontosior appareret?”
In spite of the grave authority of St. Augustine, however, it must
be admitted that there were a few myths about the many-faced god.
Ovid tells one of him and Carna, which may properly be classed as
erubescenda.” In this narrative, the poet makes Carna a goddess of
the door hinge, so that he seems to have confused Carna and Cardea.
In spite of this mistake, it is possible that Ovid was right, however,
in assuming some connection between Carna and Janus. If so, the
association was not with the primary quality of door-god, but with
the secondary one of birth-god. For Carna was a protecting deity of
infants. The story of the two deities may have arisen through this
relation. The tale could hardly have been well known, however, since
St. Augustine, for all his deep researches into Paganism, says that
Janus was free from myths of this sort.
* Varro L. L. 6, 21.
* S. Aug. C. D. 7, 4.
* Ov. F. 6, 101 sq.
CHAPTER IX
MISCELLANIES
Inscriptions
It is a curious fact that no dedicatory inscriptions to Janus have
been found in Italy. If any had existed, it is hard to believe
that all could have been lost or destroyed. The inference is, therefore,
that in Italy few, if any, stones were inscribed in his honor. A few
have been found in the provinces. Two come from Numidia.” One
of these is especially interesting, because of the false declension of the
words: IANI PATRO.” Of the others,” some are dedicated to Janus
Pater, some have the word Janus unqualified. The poorly cut inscrip-
tion from Narbonensian Gaul, bearing the words IOVIDIANO, and
the stone in honor of Janus and Mater Matuta have been mentioned in
another Chapter.”
Spolia Opima -
Besides the cult at the Janus Geminus, it is barely possible that
another ceremony, that of the spolia opima connected Janus with war.
In Paulus-Festus is the statement that the third sort of spolia opima
was dedicated to Janui Quirino." This is, however, the only passage
which mentions Janus as a recipient of these trophies. Plutarch gives
the information that there were three kinds of spolia opima: of these,
the first was offered to Jupiter, the second to Mars, the third, to Quiri-
nus. Servius says that Romulus presented the first kind to Jupiter,
Cossus, the second to Mars; and Marcellus, the third to Quirinus. But
this Quirinus, he identifies with Mars.” It is to be seen from this,
that there is little foundation for assuming that Janus had a share in
the spolia. In fact all the evidence about the spolia opima is so con-
tradictory that no conclusion about it can be reached until more infor-
mation is brought to light.
* Wissowa Relig. u. Kult. p. 106.
* CIL. VIII, 2608; 4576.
* CIL. VIII, 2608.
* CIL. III, 2881; 2969; 3030; 3158; 5092 a; VIII, S. 15577; 16417; 12, 1065.
*J. pp. 68-69.
6 Fest. 189.
7 Plut. Marcell. 8.
* Serv. Aen. 6, 859.
JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT 71
Circenses of January Seventh
An additional honor was paid to Janus by the emperors in naming
the games held in the circus on January 7 for him. The Calendar of
Philocalus contains the only reference to these games.” It has been
seen that the revival of religion under Augustus caused Janus, as well
as some of the other old deities, to regain some of his former importance
in state ritual.” The fact that his name led the list of gods, and that
the frequent intervals of peace made it possible to close the gates of his
arch perhaps contributed to make him more prominent in the thought
of the people than he had been for several generations. It was natural
therefore, that when the emperors established new games to take place
on January 7, they should have named them for Janus. Mommsen
thinks that the games were thus named because they were the first of
the year, and were consequently dedicated to the god of beginnings.”
However, as in other instances, nothing is said in the Calendar about
Janus in this capacity. It seems more probable, on the contrary, that
the games were dedicated to Janus, because they came in his month.
* CIL. I, p. 334; pp. 382–383.
10 J. pp. 27-28.
* Mommsen's note in CIL. I, pp. 382-383.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion the development of Janus may be summarized briefly
as follows: Janus originated as a simple numen of the doorway. He
developed into a god of generation, of war, and of commerce. He was
not a god of beginnings; and had no place in the ceremonies of the Ka-
lends or of New Year's Day. He had neither festival nor priest. Be-
fore the dawn of literature, at Rome, other deities had usurped most
of the powers he had possessed. He was obscured by the showiness of
the Greek and other foreign gods, more than all else by the worship
of Jupiter, while the simplicity of his worship prevented it from being
incorporated in the more elaborate state ceremonies. In spite of this,
however, he held a place in religion to the end of Paganism, because he
had, in the formative period of the ritual, gained the foremost position
in all prayers and formulas, a position from which he could not be dis-
lodged.
He retained one cult of his own. No war could be begun properly
until the gates of his arch were thrown open. Under the emperors he
enjoyed a slight revival. This resuscitation, however, was little more
than literary: the only result in worship was that one of the celebrations
in the circus was named for him. So little impression did this honor
make, however, that no reference is made to it, outside the calendar
of events. -
Finally, because of his unique position in all rituals and because of
the material prominence of his arch in the Forum, and partly, perhaps,
on account of the mystery surrounding his origin and real character,
he appealed strongly to the imagination of the poets and writers of
classical and succeeding times. Through their writings he gained the
position of god of beginnings, of the sky, and even of creator of the
world. These concepts have had most influence on the opinions of
modern scholars, but they do not belong to the true character of the
god, Janus.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(References in the footnotes are so cited as to be clear in themselves, without
the help of a key. This thesis is referred to as J.)
Allen, Grant, The Evolution of the Idea of God; an Inquiry into the Origins of Religion.
London, 1897.
Appel, G. De Romanorum Precationibus, in Religionsgesch. Versuche u. Vorarb. VII,
2. Geissen, 1909.
Aust, Emil, Die Religion der Römer. Münster, 1899.
Axtell, Harold L. The Deification of Abstract Ideas in Roman Literature and Inscrip-
lions. Chicago, 1907.
Bailey, Cyril, The Religion of Ancient Rome. London, 1907.
Barnett, L. D. Review of J. B. Carter's De Deorum Romanorum Cognominibus
Quaestiones Selectae, in Classical Review, XII, 463 sq. London, 1898.
Boethke, K. Úber das Wesen des Janus. Thorn, 1863.
Boissier, Gaston, la Religion romaine d’Auguste aux Antonins. Paris, 1874.
Bouché-Leclercq Les pontifes de l’anc. Rome. Paris, 1871.
Bréal, Michel Mélanges de Mythologie et de Linguistique. Paris, 1877.
Carter, J. B. De Deorum Romanorum Cognominibus Quaestiones Selectae. Leipzig,
1898.
Die Etrusker u. die rômische Religion, in Milteilungen des kais. deut.
archäolog. Instituts, Röm. Abteilung. 1910.
The Religion of Numa. London, 1906.
The Religious Life of Ancient Rome. Boston, 1911."
Cook, Arthur Bernard, Zeus, Jupiter, and the Oak, in Classical Review XVII, pp.
174 sqq., 268 sqq., 403 sqq.; 1903; XVIII, pp. 75 sqq., 325
Sqq., 360 Sqq., 1904. London.
Cumont, Franz, Un Livre nouveau sur la liturgie paienne, in Revue de l’instruction
Publique en Belgique XLVII, 1, pp. 1-10. Brussels, 1904.
Deecke, Wilhelm Etruskische Forschungen u. Studien.
Deubner, L. Personifikationen abstrakter Begriffe, in W. H. Roscher's Lexikon, d.
griech. u. rômisch. Mythologie, pp. 2067 sqq. Leipzig, 1902-1909.
Domaszewski, Alfred, Dei Certi und Dei Incerti, in Archiv für Religionswissenschaft
X, 1, pp. 1-10. Leipzig 1907.
Fairley, William, Monumentum Ancyranum, in Translations and Reprints from the
Original Sources of European History, Published by the Department
of History of the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1898.
Fowler, W. Warde, Jupiter and the Triumphator, in Classical Review XXX, Nos. 5
& 6. London, 1916.
The Religious Experience of the Roman People. London, 1911.
The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic. London, 1899
Frazer, James G. The Golden Bough. London, 1911.
Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship. London, 1905.
Gross, Otto, De Metonymiis Sermonis Latini a Deorum Nominibus Pelitis, in Dis-
sertationes Philologicae Hallenses XIX, pp. 297 sqq. Halle, 1911.
74 JANUS IN ROMAN LIFE AND CULT
Gruppe, O. Berichl iber die Lilleratur zur antiken Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte
aus den Jahren 1893-1897, in Jahresbericht ilber Alteriumswissenschaft,
Bd. 102. Leipzig, 1900.
Hartung, J. A. Die Religion der Römer. Erlangen, 1836.
Hempel, Geo. The Salian Hymn to Janus, in Transactions and Proceedings of the
American Philological Association XXXI, pp. 182 sqq. 1900.
Henzen, W. Acta Fratrum Arvalium Quae Supersunt. Berlin, 1874.
Jevons, F. B. The Idea of God in Early Religions. Cambridge, 1910.
Introduction to the Study of Comparative Religion. New York, 1912.
Comparalive Religion; a Survey of its Recent Literature. Edin-
burgh, 1910.
Jullian, Camille, La relig. rom. deux. siècles avant notre ére, in Mélanges De Rossi,
pp. 311-342.
Lang, Andrew, The Making of Religion. London, 1900.
The Origins of Religion. London, 1908.
Linde, S. De Iano Summo Romanorum Deo, Lund, 1891.
Maass, E. W. T. Die Tagesgötter in Rom und den Provinzen. Berlin, 1902.
Marchi De, Attilio, Il Culto Privato di Roma Antica. Milan, 1896.
Marquardt, Joachim, Römische Staatsverwaltung. Leipzig, 1878.
Maurenbrecher, B. Carminum Saliarium Reliquiae, in Philol. Jahrb. Suppl. XXI, pp.
315-353, 1894.
May, G. Le Flamen Dialis et la Virgo Vestalis. Éludes de Droit Religieux, in Revue
des Éludes Anciennes, I, pp. 3-16, 1905.
Mommsen, Th. Römisches Staatsrecht. Leipzig, 1877.
Müller, Fried. Max, Anthropological Religion. London, 1892.
Einleilung in die vergleichende Religionswissenschaft”. Strass-
burg, 1876.
Natural Religion. London, 1889.
Physical Religion. London, 1890.
Nissen, Heinrich, Das Templum. Berlin, 1869.
Orientation, Studien zur Geschichte der Religion, 2 Heft, p. 28. 1906.
Overbeck, J. A. Griechische Kunstmythologie. Leipzig, 1871-1889.
Preller, L. Römische Mythologie. Berlin, 1858.
Preller-Jordan, Römische Mythologie”. Berlin, 1881.
Reinach, S. Cultes, Mythes et Religions. Paris, 1908.
Roscher, W. H. Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen u. rāmischen Mythologie,
Suppl. E. H. Berger Mythische Kosmographie der Griechen, Lex.
8. Leipzig, 1904.
Roscher, W. H. Studien zur vergleichenden Mythologie der Griechen und Römer.
Leipzig, 1873–1875.
Samter, Ernst, Familienfeste der Griechen und Römer. Berlin, 1901.
Saussaye, De la, Chantepie P. D. Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichle, in Sammlung
Theolog. Lehrbücher. Lübingen, 1905.
JANUS IN ROMAN WIFE AND CULT 75
Schulze, Wilhelm Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen. Berlin, 1904.
Siecke, Ernst, Götterattribute und sogenannte Symbole. Jena, 1909.
Speyer, J. S. Le dieu romain Janus, in Revue de l'histoire des religions XXVI, pp.
1 sqq. Paris, 1892.
Usener, H. Götternamen. Versuch einer Lehre von der religiösen Begriffsbildung.
Bonn, 1896.
Strena Helbigiana. Leipzig, 1900.
Vorträge und Aufsätze. Leipzig, 1907.
Walde, Alois, Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg, 1910.
Wissowa, Georg, Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur römischen Religions- und Staat-
geschichte. München, 1904.
Pauly–Wissowa Real-Encyklopädie. Stuttgart, 1894–
Religion und Kultus der Romer. Munich, 1912.
Zielinski, Th. Genius und Juno, in Philologus, Neue Folge XVIII, 1, pp. 20-21.
Rom und Seine Gottheit, in Beilage zur minchner allergemeinen Zeit-
wng, 1903, N. 37-39.
Zimmermann, Aug. Zur Etymologie des Namens Juno, in Wochenschrift für Klass.
Philol. XXII, 990 sqq.
Zimmermann, Daniel, Das Wesen des Janus. Erlangen, 1852.
DFC 15 1919
THE UNrversmy of Michigan
GRADUATE LIBRARY
DATE DUE
1976
ºf 19

TY, OF
||||||||||
9015 00519 O4
DD NOT REMOVE
0R
MUTILATE CAR
º [Pºſſº tº U.C. As 28-520-002